How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Ideal-marginal score error allows unbounded finite-Euler Wasserstein error
Example
For the separated-mixture question reproduced below, there are admissible fixed one-dimensional parameters with , fixed positive score-error allowance , and every fixed integer , for which the supremum of the displayed expected fidelity loss over the original finite-valued Borel score class is , for every finite . Each individual field in the construction has a finite-first-moment Euler chain and obeys the required score bound at every time. Thus the original ideal-marginal hypothesis supplies no finite uniform bound for the requested loss, however large the fixed budget is. The original question is retained verbatim under Original question.
Example references
Original question
Fix dimension , component count , noise scale , diffusion horizon , and a continuous schedule . Assume the parameter choices below admit at least one component configuration and mixture weight vector. Consider a posterior density on of the form Here denotes the normal density with mean and covariance matrix . The component means satisfy and for , and every eigenvalue of each positive-definite lies in for fixed . Assume and . For , let be the density of under where is a standard -dimensional Brownian motion, and let be its exact score. Let be a supplied jointly Borel, finite-valued score field satisfying the integrated error bound Consider fields whose Euler chain has finite first moment. For , use the reverse-time Euler convention and with independent of and of one another. Generate independent terminal values and let ; one score evaluation per reverse step gives online budget . Define disjoint mode regions , target masses , and empirical masses . For probability measures on , let be the infimum of over all couplings with the specified marginals. Determine whether the integrated score-error assumption alone yields finite minimax-sharp nonasymptotic upper and lower bounds, uniformly over the stated score-field class, for as a function of . In particular, characterize the compute regimes that guarantee simultaneous control of distributional error and missed-mode probability uniformly over this family. This asks about score-based reverse diffusion with finite computation; it does not assume that the posterior is unimodal or that a good posterior mean certifies its mode weights.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Choose , with and . Choose , , , , , , , , and . The extraneous positive parameter called in the original formulation may be arbitrary; it is not used by its displayed sampler.
The integrating factor in the scalar forward equation gives . The stochastic integral is the mean-square limit of deterministic dyadic sums of independent Gaussian increments; these sums are centered Gaussian, with variances tending to , and are independent of . The limit is therefore Gaussian with that variance and independent of , as follows by taking limits of its Gaussian characteristic functions. At time , the noised target is the symmetric Gaussian mixture with means and common variance . Its exact score is a posterior-weighted average of and , so and is continuous. These formulas follow directly by differentiating the sum of the two Gaussian densities.
A convolution with a nondegenerate Gaussian has a strictly positive continuous density: continuity follows from the bounded Gaussian derivative, and positivity from its positive kernel. Gaussian densities have finite first moments and exponentially decaying tails.
Verification
Given: The fixed parameters and Gaussian identities in [A1]–[A2].
Use the exact score at all grid times before the last two updates. All those states have finite first moment because each exact-score drift has linear growth by [A1]. Let be the state before the penultimate update, corresponding to ideal time . Its law has a strictly positive continuous density : for it is exactly , and otherwise the last preceding nondegenerate Euler noise gives [A2]. Since is also positive and continuous, the density ratio has positive minimum and finite maximum on .
For every sufficiently small , choose the centered interval with . Such an interval exists by continuity and positivity of that density. Then . Put and add to the score at time . Its squared ideal-marginal error is exactly . Set and . After this update the state is .
Let , and let . On the state lies in , so . The ideal density is a fixed Gaussian mixture. Since the interval width is constant and its center tends to infinity, its Gaussian density formula gives constants , independent of small , such that . For example, once , every point of the interval is at distance at least from either component mean; use the largest fixed variance in its Gaussian exponent and the constant interval length.
At the final evaluation time add to the exact score, where . This second squared ideal-marginal error is also . At all other times use the exact score. These modifications at two distinct times define a jointly Borel finite-valued field with the original supremum-in-time score bound. Every individual field has finite first moments at all Euler steps: it is an affine-growth exact score plus two bounded, finite-amplitude additions.
The first moment of is bounded uniformly as : the added term has expectation at most , while and are fixed and finite. The terminal state is . By [A1] the absolute expectation of the first two terms is uniformly bounded; . Therefore , because and the exponential bound in step 3.1 dominates every power of .
Every coupling of two finite-first-moment probabilities satisfies by the integral triangle inequality. Thus because the target mean is zero. Taking expectations gives , which tends to infinity by step 5.1 for every finite . The other two terms in the requested fidelity loss are nonnegative. Its supremum is consequently infinite despite fixed positive score-error allowance and fixed admissible target parameters.
Scope of the resolution
The negative answer concerns every positive error allowance and every finite J>=2. It does not assert the same obstruction at J=1 or at exactly zero error. The mechanism is mismatch between ideal marginal mass and actual chain mass, not merely missing a mode by iid sampling. No numerical observation or source-specific failure experiment is used as the proof.
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · 0 levels
Nothing. This result depends on no other item in the library.
Sources
- Benjamin A. Burns and Sara Fridovich-Keil, When, why, and how do diffusion posterior samplers fail? A finite-sample lens (2026) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Giannis Daras et al., A Survey on Diffusion Models for Inverse Problems (2024) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Jan Blechschmidt, Oliver G. Ernst, Moritz Poguntke, and Björn Sprungk, Flow Matching for Fast Posterior Sampling in Bayesian Inverse Problems (2026) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Simon J. D. Prince, Understanding Deep Learning, Chapter 18: Diffusion Models (2026), complete course notes (standard reference, not scraped)