Beyond Gradient Flow: Identifiability and Recovery from Distribution Snapshots
Organizations: VIB, Center for Molecular Neurology, Antwerp, Belgium · VIB, Center for AI and Computational Biology, Leuven, Belgium · Faculty of Pharmaceutical, Biomedical and Veterinary Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium · Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO), Brussels, Belgium · Trinity Hall, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Abstract
Inferring dynamics from snapshots of evolving distributions is fundamentally underdetermined: the Fokker-Planck equation constrains the drift only through its score-weighted divergence , leaving a -solenoidal gauge invisible to any single-time constraint. Time-indexed transport formulations cannot resolve this ambiguity: every admissible marginal path admits a curl-free explanation, minimum-action reconstruction selects it, and marginal fit alone cannot distinguish dynamically inequivalent explanations. Requiring one autonomous field to explain several marginals instead makes part of the hidden circulation visible as changes across marginals. Separating instantaneous Fokker-Planck source constraints from the snapshot experiment, we show that the source constraints identify the field modulo the kernel of a stacked score-weighted divergence operator. For generic Gaussian shape variation, source constraints at time points in intrinsic dimension eliminate every polynomial gauge direction, whereas finitely many density snapshots alone admit aliasing; we give the obstruction explicitly. At a Gaussian anchor, for Sobolev smoothness and samples per time point, we derive a conditional lower rate for the tangent snapshot experiment, with a matching upper rate in a degreewise benchmark. Strong-form fitting is non-orthogonal to score error and cannot be repaired by spectral filtering. Instead, we estimate using smooth test functions while retaining the known diffusion term, and derive a finite-sample bound that separates sampling error from fixed-grid quadrature bias. Planted-circulation experiments confirm the predicted gauge contraction and expose a design tension between cross-slice information and covariance-aware whitening.
Figures & tables
| estimator | ingredients | k | k | k, seeds |
| gradient-only / displacement | — | — | ||
| weak, unweighted | moments | — | — | |
| weak, diagonal weights | moments | |||
| weak, GLS | moments | |||
| parametric reference | exact linear model | |||
| strong form, oracle nuisances | exact score & source | — | — |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| claim | status | scope and what it rests on |
|---|---|---|
| Prop. 1 | P | Poincaré inequality, ; App. C |
| Cor. 2 | P | ; single time |
| Cor. 18 | P | Gaussian marginals; closed-form Benamou–Brenier |
| Cor. 19 | P | population level; (i) Gaussian slices, exact OT coupling, noiseless interpolant; (ii) any (possibly non-gradient) reference drift, smooth positive Schrödinger potentials |
| Prop. 4 | P | source constraints only, at finitely many or a continuum of times; forward uniqueness for the continuum converse |
| Ex. 5 | P | explicit; shows is not necessary for snapshot equivalence |
| parameterization | params | rank | cond. | error | reached |
| antisymmetric potential | |||||
| generator frame | |||||
| + gauge reduction | |||||
| + audit preconditioning | |||||
| + tangent-only support | |||||
| Gauss–Newton (exact solve) | — | — | — | — |