Organizations: Department of Mathematics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA · Department of Mathematics, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong
While the manifold hypothesis is widely adopted in modern machine learning, complex data is often better modeled as stratified spaces -- unions of manifolds (strata) of varying dimensions. Stratified learning is challenging due to varying dimensionality, intersection singularities, and lack of efficient models in learning the underlying distributions. We provide a deep generative approach to stratified learning by developing two generative frameworks for learning distributions on stratified spaces. The first is a sieve maximum likelihood approach realized via a dimension-aware mixture of variational autoencoders. The second is a diffusion-based framework that explores the score field structure of a mixture. We establish the convergence rates for learning both the ambient and intrinsic distributions, which are shown to be dependent on the intrinsic dimensions and smoothness of the underlying strata. Utilizing the geometry of the score field, we also establish consistency for estimating the intrinsic dimension of each stratum and propose an algorithm that consistently estimates both the number of strata and their dimensions. Theoretical results for both frameworks provide fundamental insights into the interplay of the underlying geometry, the ambient noise level, and deep generative models. Extensive simulations and real dataset applications, such as molecular dynamics, demonstrate the effectiveness of our methods.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Points Labeled as 1D (blue), 2D (orange), 3D (pink), and 4D+ (gray) by Levina-Bickel MLE (left) and Local PCA (right).
Figure 2: Points Labeled as 1D (blue), 2D (orange), and 3D (pink) by Algorithm 1 over time intervals with σ∗=0 (top row), σ∗=0.02 (middle row), and σ∗=0.05 (bottom row).
[0.005,0.006]
[0.010,0.011]
[0.030,0.031]
[0.050,0.051]
[0.070,0.071]
[0.100,0.101]
[0.150,0.151]
LB
L-PCA
Dim 1
43.5
44.8
44.7
49.2
44.3
45.8
65.9
43.5
39.9
Dim 2
51.9
54.0
55.0
50.6
55.5
54.2
33.0
45.9
59.6
Dim 3
4.5
1.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
1.1
7.8
0.5
Dim 4+
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0
Accuracy
91.92
93.96
95.04
90.64
84.97
80.90
67.17
83.76
99.40
Table 1: Algorithm 1 dimension estimates (in percentages) for the union of circle and sphere with n=10000 sample and no ambient noise ( σ∗=0) , along with Levina-Bickel (LB) and Local PCA (L-PCA) estimates.
[0.005,0.006]
[0.010,0.011]
[0.030,0.031]
[0.050,0.051]
[0.070,0.071]
[0.100,0.101]
[0.150,0.151]
Dim 1
48.6
48.4
46.5
48.0
43.8
44.7
66.3
Dim 2
50.1
50.8
53.1
51.8
55.5
55.3
32.8
Dim 3
1.3
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.0
0.9
Dim 4+
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Accuracy
89.66
90.65
93.10
91.81
85.53
80.81
70.01
Table 2: Algorithm 1 dimension estimates (in percentages) for the union of circle and sphere with n=10000 sample and noise level σ∗=0.02
[0.005,0.006]
[0.010,0.011]
[0.030,0.031]
[0.050,0.051]
[0.070,0.071]
[0.100,0.101]
[0.150,0.151]
Dim 1
48.6
47.5
49.6
50.8
43.8
44.8
67.8
Dim 2
50.9
52.0
50.3
49.2
55.9
55.0
31.4
Dim 3
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.9
Dim 4+
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Accuracy
88.59
90.52
90.29
89.16
83.19
81.09
70.83
Table 3: Algorithm 1 dimension estimates (in percentages) for the union of circle and sphere with n=10000 sample and noise level σ∗=0.05
Predicted dim
True dim
1
2
4
7
Other
1 (0.15)
0
0
0
0
1500
2 (0.20)
0
0
0
0
2000
4 (0.25)
0
0
2499
0
1
7 (0.40)
0
0
0
80
3920
Overall Acc: 25.79% (Local PCA)
Table 4: Comparison of confusion matrices for baseline estimators (Local PCA, Levina-Bickel) and Algorithm 1 on the 4-manifold mixture with noise σ∗=0.05 . Algorithm 1 results reflect the time interval with best accuracy, t∈[0.020,0.021] .
Estimator
N
Mean dim
Median dim
IQR
Mode dim
Local PCA (k=20, 95% var)
2000
7.928
8.000
[8.000, 8.000]
8
Levina–Bickel MLE (k=20)
2000
7.043
6.761
[5.598, 8.198]
6
Table 5: Classical intrinsic dimension estimates for butane dynamics.
Time
Dim 1
Dim 2
Dim 3
Dim 11
Mean
[0.01,0.011]
153 (30.6%)
47 (9.4%)
0 (0.0%)
300 (60.0%)
7.10
[0.03,0.031]
290 (58.0%)
131 (26.2%)
4 (0.8%)
75 (15.0%)
2.78
[0.05,0.051]
322 (64.4%)
149 (29.8%)
13 (2.6%)
16 (3.2%)
1.67
[0.07,0.071]
312 (62.4%)
166 (33.2%)
18 (3.6%)
4 (0.8%)
1.48
[0.10,0.101]
251 (50.2%)
241 (48.2%)
8 (1.6%)
0 (0.0%)
1.51
[0.15,0.151]
183 (36.6%)
314 (62.8%)
3 (0.6%)
0 (0.0%)
1.64
Table 6: Intrinsic dimension estimates for Butane dynamics over 500 samples.
Time
Dim 1
Dim 2
Dim 3
Dim 4
Dim 5
Dim 29
Mean
[0.01,0.011]
7 (1.4%)
31 (6.2%)
96 (19.2%)
72 (14.4%)
84 (16.8%)
156 (31.2%)
12.62
[0.03,0.031]
14 (2.8%)
90 (18.0%)
240 (48.0%)
28 (5.6%)
22 (4.4%)
104 (20.8%)
6.55
[0.05,0.051]
26 (5.2%)
185 (37.0%)
247 (49.4%)
8 (1.6%)
2 (0.4%)
32 (6.4%)
4.10
[0.07,0.071]
46 (9.2%)
243 (48.6%)
201 (40.2%)
1 (0.2%)
0 (0.0%)
9 (1.8%)
3.04
[0.10,0.101]
92 (18.4%)
265 (53.0%)
141 (28.2%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (0.4%)
2.51
[0.15,0.151]
141 (28.2%)
285 (57.0%)
74 (14.8%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1.87
Table 7: Alanine dipeptide (heavy atoms) dimension estimates across time windows using 500 samples. For brevity, only the most frequent dimensions are shown.
Figure 3: Ground truth (left), classified points (middle), reconstructions (right) for the union of a circle and 2 -dimensional plane with n=3000 samples.
Figure 4: Ground truth (left), classified points (middle), reconstructions (right) for the union of a curve and Swiss roll with n=3000 samples.
Figure 5: Comparison of the (Sliced) Wasserstein-1 distance between learned distribution and the intrinsic distribution via diffusion models and Mixture of VAEs at n=1000 and n=3000 samples.
Despite the widespread use and success of generative AI techniques today, theoretical guarantees on learning a distribution supported in d dimensions from n samples degrade as O(n−1/Θ(d)), though shown to be minimax optimal. We hypothesize that present bounds are too pessimistic because smoothness assumptions are not enough to capture the structure of distributions that often appear in real applications. Consequently, we introduce the class of sparse priors and define the "Sparse Dimension" as a measure of sparsity of a prior over the space of all distributions. We show that distribution learning under a k-sparse prior achieves a Bayesian risk lower bound of Ω(k/n) under common distance metrics, and show a matching (up to logarithmic terms asymptotically in n,k) upper bound for the TV distance under mild additional assumptions. We show the statistical equivalence of distribution learning and learning to sample in the Bayesian setting so that our results apply to learning to sample as well. While k can still depend on the dimension d, or a notion of intrinsic dimension, our results show that learning under an appropriate prior overcomes the curse of dimensionality with respect to the dependence on n.
Saumya Goyal, Barnabás Póczos
Machine Learning Department, Carnegie Mellon University
Despite their empirical success across a wide range of generative tasks, the fundamental principles underlying the ability of diffusion models to learn data distributions are poorly understood. In this work, we develop a new mathematical framework that explains how diffusion models can effectively learn low-dimensional distributions from a finite number of training samples without suffering from the curse of dimensionality. Specifically, motivated by the intrinsic low-dimensional structure of image data, we theoretically analyze a setting in which the data distribution is modeled as a mixture of low-rank Gaussians. Under suitable network parameterization, we show that optimizing the training objective of diffusion models is equivalent to solving the canonical subspace clustering problem over the training samples, where each subspace basis corresponds to the low-rank covariance of a Gaussian component. This equivalence allows us to show that the sample complexity for learning the underlying distribution scales linearly with the intrinsic dimension of the data, rather than exponentially with the ambient dimension. Our theoretical findings are further supported by empirical evidence that demonstrates phase transition phenomena in generalization on both synthetic and real-world image datasets. Moreover, we establish a correspondence between the learned subspace bases and semantic attributes of image data, providing a principled foundation for controllable image generation.
Peng Wang, Huijie Zhang, Zekai Zhang +3
University of Macau · University of Michigan · University of California, Berkeley
Diffusion models generate high-dimensional data with remarkable quality, yet how their training efficiently learns the score function, bypassing the curse of dimensionality when data is supported on low-dimensional manifolds, remains theoretically unexplained. We identify a collapse-and-refine mechanism driven by the geometry of the score function itself: at small noise scales, the diverging singularity of the score drives a rapid dimensional collapse of the induced denoising map onto the data manifold projection; at moderate noise scales, training refines the intrinsic density on the learned manifold. We instantiate this principle as Score-induced Latent Diffusion (SiLD), a two-stage framework in which both manifold learning and density estimation emerge from a single denoising score matching objective, replacing the heuristic KL regularization of VAE-based latent diffusion models. We prove that the resulting sample complexity depends on the intrinsic dimension rather than the ambient dimension. Experiments on Stacked MNIST, CelebA variants, and molecular generation benchmarks show that SiLD matches or outperforms VAE-based LDMs in generation quality and consistently improves reconstruction, validating our theoretical predictions.
Wei Huang, Andi Han, Mingyuan Bai +4
RIKEN AIP & The Institute of Statistical Mathematics · University of Sydney · Agency for Science, Technology and Research & The Institute of Statistical Mathematics +4