Bansal, Borgnia, Chu, Li, Kazemi, Huang, Goldblum, Geiping, Goldstein, University of Maryland and NYU (2022) — ARXIV-2208.09392
Key takeaways
-
Generalized diffusion: any degradation
D(x₀, t), continuous intwithD(x₀, 0) = x₀, and a restorerR(x_t, t) ≈ x₀trained with an ℓ₁ loss -
The naive sampler fails for smooth degradations. Re-degrading the estimate,
x_{s−1} = D(R(x_s), s−1), compounds errors (Figure 2) -
Algorithm 2 adds back only the change in degradation between steps. For
D(x, s) ≈ x + s·e, the first-order Taylor form of any smooth degradation, it reproducesD(x₀, s−1)exactly for anyR. For blur, each step adds back a difference-of-Gaussians band of the frequencies removed at that step -
Conditional restoration works: deblurring, inpainting, super-resolution and desnowing on MNIST, CIFAR-10 and CelebA improve FID over direct one-shot reconstruction
-
Unconditional generation is much weaker (Table 5, FID):
CelebA AFHQ hot, fixed noise 59.91 25.62 hot, estimated noise 23.11 20.59 cold blur, noiseless 97.00 93.05 cold blur, σ = 0.002 noise added 49.45 54.68
Standing in the anthology
Filed from #163 (“[theory] cold diffusion”). The account it offers,
that diffusion’s generative behaviour does not depend on the noise, is filed
as THEORY-079 and is Rejected on the paper’s own numbers and on Warm
Diffusion’s sweep (LIT-555). The corrected account is THEORY-080.
The sentence that travelled and the one that should have. The abstract’s “generative behavior of diffusion models is not strongly dependent on the choice of image degradation” is the one quoted. The paper’s own remedy for its noiseless model’s lack of diversity is to add Gaussian noise, which halves its FID. The authors attribute the collapse to perfectly correlated pixels in the initial sample, which is another way of saying the noise was doing work (DP-010).
The sampler is the keeper. Algorithm 2’s exactness under first-order degradations is a real and general property, and it is the part that Warm Diffusion builds on.
Read — NOTE-299.