Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430072, China. · Institute for Math and AI, Hubei Key Laboratory of Computational Science, and School of Artificial Intelligence, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China. · School of Mathematics and Statistics, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430072, China.
Gaussian diffusion models offer a practical framework for generative modeling. Denoising Lévy Probabilistic Models (DLPM) introduce heavy-tailed perturbations with a fixed tail index throughout denoising. We introduce Annealed Lévy Diffusion (ALD). ALD varies the stability index α(t) to combine heavy-tailed exploration with Gaussian refinement. Our marginal-first formulation represents stable noise as a scalar Gaussian scale mixture. This formulation enables standard Gaussian noise-prediction training with one additional scale input. We study two sampling processes. ALD-renoise estimates the clean sample and injects fresh marginal noise. ALD-posterior preserves dependence between successive states through an accumulated conditional variance and a Gaussian bridge update. Both samplers reuse the same trained predictor with different scalar inputs. We evaluate ALD on four 2D benchmarks and an imbalanced nine-mode mixture. We also examine training efficiency and the effects of prediction perturbations on clipped Holtsmark data. Additional experiments evaluate MNIST and CelebA64 generation and CIFAR-10LT augmentation. ALD preserves local geometry on the evaluated light-tailed and manifold-structured targets.
Figures & tables
Symbol
Description
xt
State vector at diffusion time t∈[0,1]
x0
Data sample from pdata(x)
α(t)
Time-dependent stability index, α(t)∈(1,2]
St
Positive stable variance multiplier, St∼Aα(t)/2 ; St≡1 if α(t)=2
S~t
Clamped impulse, S~t=min(St,Smax)
n
Standard Gaussian random vector, n∼N(0,I)
Table 1: Summary of Notation
Dataset
Model
W2 ( ↓ )
MMD2 ( ↓ )
SHS ( ≈1 )
Heavy-Tailed Cross
DDPM
0.0833±0.0195
0.000852±0.001177
0.8857±0.2411
DLPM
0.1772±0.0529
0.005861±0.008071
0.5817±0.2223
ALD-renoise
0.0830±0.0374
0.000384±0.000361
1.1131±0.3757
ALD-posterior
0.0884±0.0113
0.000435±0.000763
0.9398±0.2344
Swiss Roll
DDPM
0.0268±0.0081
0.000267±0.000489
1.2473±0.3656
DLPM
0.0971±0.0207
0.003356±0.002302
0.6516±0.3785
Table 2: 2D benchmarks (mean ± sample standard deviation over five seeds). Lower is better for W2 and MMD2 ; SHS is ranked by distance to one. Swiss Roll SHS uses the two valid seeds shared by all methods. Bold marks the best mean. Full protocol details are in Appendix A .
Figure 2: Representative samples on the four main 2D benchmarks. Rows correspond to HTC, Swiss Roll, MoG40, and Holtsmark; columns show the reference data, DDPM, DLPM, ALD-renoise, and ALD-posterior. The quantitative metrics are reported separately in Table 2 .
Model
PPRD ( ↑ )
RPRD ( ↑ )
F1pr ( ↑ )
DDPM
0.9307±0.0177
0.9805±0.0039
0.9549±0.0104
DLPM
0.9600±0.0064
0.9835±0.0014
0.9716±0.0039
DLPM5
0.9605±0.0031
0.9820±0.0031
0.9711±0.0011
ALD-renoise
0.9897±0.0006
0.9863±0.0026
0.9880±0.0016
ALD-posterior
0.9909±0.0012
0.9935±0.0004
0.9922±0.0004
Table 3: Additional imbalanced nine-mode benchmark (mean ± std over three seeds; higher is better).
Figure 3: Additional nine-mode benchmark under unequal mixture weights.
Figure 4: Training-efficiency diagnostics on clipped Holtsmark (mean ± std over three seeds): W2 versus (a) hidden width and (b) optimizer updates. ALD-renoise and ALD-posterior share checkpoints and sampling parameters; lower is better. Full settings are in Appendix A .
Method / Digit
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DDPM
72.12
85.93
72.55
67.21
67.78
67.17
75.20
73.48
62.15
74.89
DLPM
86.83
91.48
88.42
85.76
88.51
86.48
86.25
87.79
81.40
89.37
ALD-renoise
74.23
85.56
66.95
60.13
62.43
64.06
70.96
70.77
61.35
74.02
ALD-posterior
89.20
93.43
91.53
87.76
88.51
88.79
89.67
90.40
84.38
89.26
Table 4: Classwise MNIST kNN coverage (%). Bold marks the highest coverage in each digit column, including ties. Values average two classifier diagnostics and two sampling seeds from one generator training seed; full settings are in Appendix A .
Training data
Accuracy
Teacher model
93.43
DDPM + Real
91.61
DLPM + Real
91.42
ALD-posterior + Real
91.72
Table 5: CIFAR-10 test accuracy (%). Bold marks the best result among the three synthetic-augmentation arms; the teacher model is shown as a real-data-only reference.
Method / Class
Airplane
Auto.
Bird
Cat
Deer
Dog
Frog
Horse
Ship
Truck
Macro
Teacher model
94.11
96.59
91.32
85.97
93.78
90.14
95.24
95.65
95.96
95.63
93.44
DDPM + Real
91.37
96.11
88.53
82.28
92.37
86.59
94.67
94.71
94.68
94.77
91.61
DLPM + Real
92.55
96.17
88.07
81.80
91.55
86.15
93.97
93.49
95.39
94.98
91.41
ALD-posterior + Real
92.14
96.57
88.69
82.50
91.83
87.03
93.96
94.35
94.85
95.18
91.71
Table 6: Classwise CIFAR-10 F 1 (%). Bold marks the best result in each column among the three synthetic-augmentation arms; the teacher model is excluded from this comparison.
Model
FID ↓
KID ×103↓
Precision ↑
Recall ↑
Density ↑
Coverage ↑
DDPM
2.5763±0.0197
1.7926±0.4276
0.7607
0.5819
1.2721
0.9680
DLPM
2.9660±0.0221
1.9828±0.3872
0.7681
0.5687
1.3417
0.9697
ALD-posterior
2.1090±0.0155
1.1419±0.2892
0.7536
0.5940
1.2417
0.9683
Table 7: Formal CelebA64 generation results (single training and sampling seed; 50,000 generated images and 1,000 NFE per method). Lower is better for FID and KID, higher for the four PRDC metrics. KID values and their subset standard deviations are multiplied by 103 . Bold marks the best reported value in each column, not statistical significance.
Figure 5: Uncurated ALD-posterior CelebA64 cases.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Hidden dimension
Training steps
Learning rate
Heavy-Tailed Cross
128
15,000
5×10−4
Swiss Roll
128
15,000
10−3
MoG40
256
20,000
5×10−4
Holtsmark Field
256
1,000
5×10−4
Appendix
Table 8: Training settings for the main 2D benchmarks.
Figure 6: Prediction-output perturbation on Holtsmark (mean ± sample standard deviation over nine runs). Lower is better for W2 and MMD2 ; SHS is ranked by distance to one. Both samplers reuse the same ALD checkpoints and differ only in the reverse transition.
Candidate
η
p
FID ↓
KID ×103↓
Prec. ↑
Rec. ↑
Dens. ↑
Cov. ↑
p100_e000
0
1.0
4.6452
1.2289
0.7302
0.6216
1.1331
0.9566
p100_e050
0.5
1.0
4.6430
1.3127
0.7384
0.6172
1.1388
0.9554
p100_e100
1
1.0
5.0132
1.6877
0.7418
0.6090
1.1601
0.9608
p150_e000
0
1.5
4.5631
1.0842
0.7338
0.6324
1.1390
0.9606
p150_e050
0.5
1.5
4.5266
1.1273
0.7452
0.6224
1.1823
0.9618
p150_e100
1
1.5
4.7560
1.2562
0.7612
0.6074
1.2142
0.9626
Appendix
Table 9: Validation-only ALD sampler sweep. Every candidate uses 5,000 generated images and 1,000 NFE; FID compares against all 19,867 validation images, KID uses 100 subsets of 1,000, and PRDC uses fixed 5,000/5,000 subsets. KID entries are multiplied by 103 . Bold identifies the frozen choice, not a winner on every metric. These values are not directly comparable with the formal train-reference scores in Table 7 .
We study Slowly Annealed Langevin Dynamics (SALD), a sampler for tracking a path of moving target distributions and approximating the terminal target through time slowdown. We establish non-asymptotic convergence guarantees via a KL differential inequality, showing that slowdown improves tracking through contraction of intermediate targets and the complexity of the path. Motivated by training-free guided generation with pretrained score-based generative models, we further introduce Velocity-Aware SALD (VA-SALD), which explicitly incorporates the underlying marginal distributions of the pretrained model and uses slowdown to correct the additional deviation induced by guidance. This yields a principled framework for training-free guided generation for diffusion-based and related generative model families, together with convergence guarantees that clarify the roles of intermediate functional inequalities and guidance bias. Code is available at https://github.com/anitan0925/sald.
Atsushi Nitanda, Dake Bu, Yueming Lyu +1
Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A⋆STAR) · Nanyang Technological University · City University of Hong Kong
Generative modelling involves two complementary tasks: learning a probabilistic approximation of an unknown data distribution from observations, and designing a tractable mechanism for sampling from this approximation. We present a stochastic-analysis perspective on score-based generative models, connecting ideas from classical sampling theory, score estimation, and diffusion time reversal. We first explain how score functions link Langevin sampling with score matching, and how Gaussian smoothing leads to denoising score matching and multiscale sampling methods. We then emphasize the distinction between dynamics preserving a fixed distribution and dynamics transporting a prescribed family of marginals. This motivates a path-space treatment of diffusion time reversal. Finally, we connect the ideal reverse diffusion with practical generative algorithms.
Stanislas Strasman
SU, LPSM · Laboratoire de Probabilités, Statistique et Modélisation, Sorbonne Université
This paper studies inverse sampling for Lévy-driven generative models from the perspective of Markov generators. Unlike conventional diffusion models, Lévy-driven dynamics involve infinite jump activities, which makes their reverse process nonlocal and difficult to characterize using score information alone. We address this challenge by analyzing the forward and reversed generators. It is derived that the reversed jump component generally becomes a state-dependent Markov jump process governed by a nonlocal density ratio. This observation motivates a structured reverse sampler that decomposes the dynamics into diffusion, small jump, and large jump components. Based on this characterization, we develop a computationally tractable sampler for a class of isotropic linear Lévy SDEs with symmetric α-stable jump components. For the jump component, the neural network is used only to amortize the rate of large jump activities, while jump amplitudes are generated from analytically derived conditional distributions, which improves interpretability and controllability. Efficient implementation techniques are further introduced under this setting to avoid expensive high-dimensional integration and sampling. The sampler is further adapted to approximate observation-guided sampling and applied to OFDM-SISO channel estimation under mixed Gaussian and impulsive noise. Simulations show robust estimation performance with a favorable tradeoff between complexity and performance.
Tianfu Qi, Jun Wang, Jun Zhang
National Key Laboratory of Wireless Communications, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China · Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China