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.
Discrete masked diffusion and finite-state reverse generation
1 · Prerequisites
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Completeness, Completion, and Uniform Continuity
- Computational foundations: factorization, KL, and optimization
- Conditional Distributions and Regular Conditional Probability
- Conditional Expectation
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Convex and Semicontinuous Functions on Rⁿ
- Convexity
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Darboux, L'Hôpital, and Taylor's Theorem
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Domination and Likelihood Ratios
- Estimators and Randomized Procedures
- F-Divergences, Rényi Information, and Hypothesis Testing
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- General-state MCMC ergodicity and mixing
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Loss, Risk and Decision Theory
- Measurable Functions and Simple Approximation
- Measures and Their Basic Properties
- Metric Spaces
- Minimax Lower Bounds
- Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Pointwise Extended-Real Function Products
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Prediction problems, risks, and empirical minimization
- Probability Spaces Random Variables and Expectation
- Product Measures and the Fubini Tonelli Theorems
- Properties of the Integral and the Working FTC
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Rⁿ as a Normed Space; Vector-Valued Functions
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Sequences and Limits
- Sequences and Series of Functions; Uniform Convergence
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Sigma Algebras and Borel Sets
- Signed and Complex Measures Hahn and Jordan
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Stationary Markov Chains and Ergodic Limits
- Statistical Experiments, Models and Identifiability
- Suprema and Infima
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Exponential Function
- The Integral Logarithm and the Equivalence of Its Characterisations
- The Lebesgue Integral and the Convergence Theorems
- The Logarithm and General Powers
- The Radon Nikodym Theorem and Lebesgue Decomposition
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The Total Derivative in ℝᵐ → ℝⁿ
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
- Variational inference and the evidence lower bound
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Logical flowchart
3 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
Finite masking diffusion chain
Definition
Fix a finite nonempty clean vocabulary , a mask symbol , integers , a grid , a survival schedule , and a probability vector on (nonnegative entries summing to one). Put and for . On one coordinate, the step- transition from stays at with probability and moves to with probability ; from it stays at with probability one. All other one-coordinate transitions have probability zero. The sequence-state transition from to in is the product of these one-coordinate probabilities over the coordinates. Starting with , the conditional path mass is where is the stated one-coordinate transition rule. Thus, conditional on the clean sequence, the coordinate trajectories are independent. At each step, the next-coordinate states are independent conditional on the preceding sequence state, with the transition probabilities above; successive states of a coordinate need not be independent. The mask is absorbing.
The following one-coordinate diagram records the three transition formulas at step ; each arrow label is its transition probability. The clean-state loop has probability at the terminal step , so it is absent from the support there.
Definition references
Measure kernel and probability kernel: a probability kernel assigns a probability measure to each state and has measurable evaluation functions; on the finite power-set space above this is exactly a row-stochastic transition matrix.
Uniform row error bounds mixture-kernel error
Statement
Let be a finite nonempty set and let and be probability kernels on , meaning that each row is a probability vector. For probability vectors on , use , where . If for , then every probability vector on satisfies where and similarly for .
Statement references
Total variation distance for probability laws: total variation is the supremum of absolute event-probability differences.
Measure kernel and probability kernel: each kernel row is a probability measure; on finite power-set spaces this is a row-stochastic matrix.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite nonempty set , probability kernels on , a probability vector on , and with the stated uniform row bound. Prove .
Total variation distance for probability laws: for probability laws , .
Measure kernel and probability kernel: every row and is a probability law.
Proof
Fix . By [F2] and the finite mixture formulas, Each summand's event difference is bounded by its row total variation, so the right side is at most .
Taking the supremum over all in step 1.1 and applying [F1] gives .
Finite product KL is the sum of coordinate KLs
Statement
Let , let be finite nonempty sets, and let be probability vectors on . Put and on . With the finite directional KL divergence, zero source masses contributing zero and positive source mass against zero reference mass contributing , one has with equality also when one or both sides are .
Statement references
Finite Kullback–Leibler divergence: , with for positive source mass where the reference mass is zero.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite list of finite nonempty sets and probability vectors . Prove additivity of the finite KL of their product laws, including singular support.
Finite Kullback–Leibler divergence: the finite KL convention is directional; zero source terms vanish and positive source mass over zero reference mass gives .
Proof
Suppose some coordinate has . For every other coordinate , the finite probability vector has a nonempty support set . Choose one point from each of the finitely many by recursion over the finite index list; this uses only finite choice. Then while . By [F1], and , so both sides of the claimed identity are .
Otherwise, for every and every with , . For each tuple with , Substitute this finite sum into the definition [F1], interchange the finite sums, and sum out every coordinate except ; each such marginal sum is . The result is .
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 cover all possibilities, including and coordinates with zero source mass. This proves the extended-valued identity.
Finite-chain reverse-kernel error telescope
Statement
Let be a finite nonempty state space and let . For each , let and be probability kernels on , used in reverse order from level to level . Starting from probability vectors , define and . If and where , then Here .
Statement references
Total variation distance for probability laws: for probability laws, total variation is the supremum of absolute event-probability differences.
Measure kernel and probability kernel: a probability kernel has probability-law rows; on its action is matrix multiplication.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The finite state space, the pairs of probability kernels, the initial probability vectors, and all stated total-variation bounds. Prove the endpoint bound.
Total variation distance for probability laws: and lies in for probability laws.
Total variation duality, kernel contraction, and coupling bound: applying the same probability kernel to two input laws cannot increase their total-variation distance.
Uniform row error bounds mixture-kernel error: a uniform row-wise total-variation error gives for every input law .
Measure kernel and probability kernel: each and row is a probability law.
Proof
Fix and . Insert the intermediate measure and use the ordinary triangle inequality for real numbers on the two event differences. The first difference is at most by [F2], and the second is at most by [F3]. Taking the supremum over by [F1] gives .
Apply step 1.1 successively for . The intermediate distances telescope, so .
Since both endpoint vectors are probability laws, [F1] gives . Combining this with step 2.1 yields the stated minimum, including the cases , zero kernel errors, and a sum at least one.
Finite masking-chain transitions define a probability law
Statement
For a finite absorbing-mask chain with finite clean vocabulary, mask symbol, sequence length, strict grid, and survival schedule as specified above, each sequence-state transition row is a probability vector, and the displayed joint path mass sums to one over and . Thus it defines a probability law on the finite clean-sequence and path space.
Statement references
Finite masking diffusion chain: fixes , the one-coordinate rows, product sequence kernels, and the path-mass formula.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite nonempty , , , the strict survival schedule, and a probability vector on as in the defining item. Prove each row and the joint path mass are normalized.
Finite masking diffusion chain: and , , , with all other entries zero; .
Measure kernel and probability kernel: a probability kernel has probability-measure rows and measurable evaluation functions.
Proof
The strict schedule gives . For a clean token , its one-coordinate row has total mass ; for , the row mass is . Therefore every product row satisfies . Its entries are nonnegative. Since is finite with its power-set sigma-algebra, [F2] makes a probability kernel.
For fixed , sum the conditional path mass backward: summing first over uses the row sum of from step 1.1 and removes that factor; repeating for leaves . Summing over then gives , so each conditional path mass sums to one.
Multiplying these conditional path laws by and summing over the finite set gives total mass . All masses are nonnegative and the path space is finite, so the joint mass is a probability vector.
Finite-grid masked reverse sampler
Definition
For the finite masking chain with state space and survival schedule , take probability vectors for every position , reverse step , and current state , where . Initialize . For , set and update all positions from the same current state as follows, independently across positions conditional on : if , set ; if and , draw from ; if and , set when , and otherwise draw the clean token from using . The resulting one-coordinate row is when , and, when , has mass at and mass at each ; the sequence-state kernel is . Return after the finite loop. The mathematical random source is a finite product of mutually independent uniform variables , one pair for each step and position; an implementation seed is valid only insofar as its supplied random kernel has this law. For inverse-CDF token draws, fix any order , choose the first whose cumulative mass strictly exceeds , and return if that draw equals . At , , so every remaining mask is unmasked.
Definition references
Finite masking diffusion chain: supplies the finite vocabulary, mask, length, grid, and survival schedule.
Measure kernel and probability kernel: a probability kernel is a family of probability-law rows with measurable evaluation functions; the finite above is a product of such rows.
Finite-grid masked sampler defines a normalized law
Statement
Let be finite and nonempty, , , , and . For each , let be a probability vector on , put , and define the reverse coordinate rows to copy an unmasked token and, from , assign mass to and mass to each . Their product rows are probability vectors. Composing these kernels from the point mass at therefore gives a normalized finite law, and its final state lies in because removes every remaining mask.
Statement references
Finite-grid masked reverse sampler: defines , the position-wise reverse rows, their product kernel, and the start state .
Measure kernel and probability kernel: a probability kernel has probability-law rows.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite strict survival schedule and the probability-vector family from the sampler definition. Prove the reverse kernels are normalized and end in .
Finite-grid masked reverse sampler: ; a masked coordinate stays masked with mass and moves to with mass ; unmasked coordinates are copied.
Measure kernel and probability kernel: on a finite power-set state space, a nonnegative row summing to one is a probability kernel.
Proof
For , strict decrease gives and , so . Since , , hence .
If , the coordinate row in [F1] is a point mass and sums to one. If , its mass is because is a probability vector. The product over positions therefore has nonnegative entries summing to the product of ones, namely one; by [F2] it is a probability-kernel row.
Fix a current state and position . If and , the uniform threshold satisfies and . For an ordered vocabulary , put and . The inverse-CDF rule selects on the interval , whose uniform probability is . The fallback at has probability zero and so does not change this law, even if the fallback token has zero mass. Since the mask and token uniforms are independent, the resulting row assigns mass to and to each . If , the direct token draw has law and no mask is retained. Unmasked coordinates are copied, and independence of the random pairs across positions makes the sequence row the product in [F1]. Thus the stated random instructions realize the coordinate and product rows from step 2.1.
The loop has exactly reverse-step iterations, each updates the finite set of positions once, and each inverse-CDF search checks at most the finite number of tokens; the fallback defines the draw also at . Hence every instruction terminates and the algorithm terminates after finitely many operations. Starting from the point mass at , composition of the normalized rows from step 2.1 gives a normalized finite path and endpoint law. At , , so the algorithm's direct token-draw branch removes every remaining mask and copies every already clean coordinate. Thus , completing the support claim.
Posterior of a finite masking chain
Statement
Let be a finite nonempty vocabulary, let , let , and let be the survival schedule of the finite masking chain. Fix a clean sequence and grid indices . For every state with , the conditional law of given is a product over coordinates. At coordinate , if , then with probability one. If , then, with , the only possible values are and , with probabilities The denominator is positive because implies ; at the mask posterior has zero mass.
Statement references
Finite masking diffusion chain: conditional on , coordinates and masking draws are independent, clean tokens never change, and is absorbing.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The finite masking chain, a fixed clean string , grid indices , and a state with positive conditional probability given . Prove the displayed product posterior.
Finite masking diffusion chain: at step , a clean token survives with probability , the mask is absorbing, and corruption factors over positions conditional on the clean string.
Finite masking-chain transitions define a probability law: the finite path mass is a normalized probability law.
Proof
For one coordinate, the probability of surviving all steps through is , with the empty product equal to one when . Survival through has probability . Since the mask is absorbing, the event “clean at and masked at ” has probability , while “masked at ” has probability . The latter is positive for . Dividing these finite event probabilities gives the two displayed conditional masses, which sum to one.
If , positive conditional probability forces ; the token could not have changed or been unmasked after masking, so its earlier value is the same. If , step 1.1 gives the two possible earlier values and their probabilities. By [F1], conditional on the coordinate paths are independent; conditioning on the coordinatewise event therefore leaves the coordinate posterior laws independent, and their product is the asserted full conditional law.
The strict schedule gives and . At , ; at , and the denominator is one. Thus the formula covers both endpoints without conditioning on the zero-probability event .
Finite masking path law factors backward by its posterior rows
Statement
Fix a clean string and let be the finite forward path law of the absorbing-mask chain. For every path with , the reversed path probability factors as Each factor on the right is the true one-step posterior conditional on the clean string ; the identity is asserted only on positive-probability paths.
Statement references
Finite masking diffusion chain: the conditional forward path mass is the product of its one-step transition rows.
Posterior of a finite masking chain: gives the finite conditional law of each preceding state given and the current state.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A fixed clean string , the finite Markov path mass, and a positive-probability path . Prove the reversed factorization.
Finite masking diffusion chain: conditional on , the path mass is , with each transition depending only on its preceding state.
Finite masking-chain transitions define a probability law: these path masses form a probability law on the finite path space.
Posterior of a finite masking chain: for a positive-probability current state, the conditional law of given is the stated posterior row.
Proof
Fix and a positive-probability suffix . By [F1], for every prefix ending at , the probability of adjoining the fixed future suffix is multiplied by the same factor , which does not depend on . Summing over earlier coordinates preserves this common factor, so it cancels in the conditional ratio. Thus on this positive suffix.
Repeated finite conditioning in reverse order gives . Replace each suffix conditional by step 1.1 and identify the one-step row using [F3]. The resulting equality is the displayed factorization, including .
Masked-diffusion KL reduces to weighted cross-entropy
Statement
Let be a finite nonempty vocabulary, let , let , and let . Draw from any probability law on . Conditional on , at step each clean coordinate survives with probability using fresh Bernoulli innovations independent across coordinates and steps, and otherwise becomes ; an already masked coordinate remains masked. Thus is the state after step . For , put Let be any predictors, where and is the set of probability vectors on . Define the learned reverse kernel to have product rows: an unmasked coordinate is copied, while a masked coordinate assigns mass to and mass to each . For every positive-probability current state , the true conditional law also has product rows: it copies every unmasked coordinate and, at a masked coordinate , assigns mass to and to . For , let , which has probability , and let be the conditional law of given . View as a predictor in the finite supervised problem with feature , label , action space , its singleton predictor class, and loss , with . Its population risk under is For finite-alphabet probability vectors and , write , with zero source terms set to zero and positive source mass against zero reference mass set to . Define the extended-nonnegative conditional reverse-KL contribution Then as an equality of extended nonnegative quantities. If a predictor assigns zero mass to the true token on a positive-probability masked event, both sides are ; finite cross-entropy is not assumed.
Statement references
Finite Kullback–Leibler divergence: for finite probability vectors, , with when .
Finite product KL is the sum of coordinate KLs: the finite KL of product probability vectors is the sum of their coordinate KLs, including the singular-support case.
Posterior of a finite masking chain: conditional on the clean string, the true reverse posterior is a product of copy rows and two-point mask/unmask rows.
Finite-grid masked reverse sampler: the learned reverse rows copy unmasked tokens and use the same mask/unmask probability with clean-token vector .
Supervised prediction problems: a supervised problem specifies measurable feature, label, action spaces, a joint law, a predictor class and a nonnegative measurable loss.
Population and empirical risk: population risk is the extended nonnegative integral of the loss under the data law.
Population and empirical risks are measurable: the finite-state loss and conditional risk are measurable and defined.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite masking chain, its true posterior, the learned product reverse kernel, finite-alphabet KL, and the finite conditional prediction problems in the Statement. Prove the summed reverse-KL/cross-entropy identity.
Finite masking diffusion chain: forward corruption is independent across positions conditional on ; a clean token survives to step with probability , and the mask is absorbing.
Posterior of a finite masking chain: for , a masked coordinate has true clean probability and mask probability ; an unmasked coordinate is copied; the posterior factors across positions given .
Finite-grid masked reverse sampler: from a masked coordinate the learned row assigns mass to and mass to each clean token ; learned position rows are conditionally independent.
Finite Kullback–Leibler divergence: finite relative entropy is directional, zero source masses contribute zero, and positive source mass against zero target mass gives .
Supervised prediction problems: the finite feature and label spaces, Borel action simplex , singleton predictor, conditional joint law, and cross-entropy loss form a supervised prediction problem.
Population and empirical risk: its population risk is the extended conditional expectation .
Population and empirical risks are measurable: finite-state measurable predictors and losses have a defined measurable risk.
Finite product KL is the sum of coordinate KLs: finite product KL is the sum of its coordinate KL terms, with preserved when a factor has singular support.
Proof
Equip the finite feature space and label space with their power-set sigma-algebras, and equip with the Borel sigma-algebra inherited from . Every predictor is measurable because its domain is finite and discrete. For each , the coordinate map is continuous, and for , with , is Borel measurable on . Therefore is Borel measurable and nonnegative. Since is finite and discrete, the loss is measurable on . This verifies the loss-measurability requirement in [F5] and the finite-state measurability used in [F7]. Now fix a step , clean string , and observed positive-probability state . The true and learned conditional laws both factor over positions by [F2] and [F3]. Applying [F8] to these finite product rows makes their joint conditional KL the sum of the coordinate KLs, preserving the singular case described by [F4].
If , the true and learned coordinate rows are the same point mass, so their KL is zero. If , put and . The true row has mass at and at ; the learned row has mass at and at . If , the only nonzero KL terms are and, when , . If , [F4] gives , which is the same extended value as . Thus the full conditional KL is .
For each , [F1] gives , independent of . Averaging the th term of step 2.1 over the forward corruption therefore gives by [F5]–[F7]. This argument conditions on a positive event and does not assume the clean coordinates of are independent.
Sum the step 3.1 identity over the finite positions and all . The coefficient identity holds because . At , gives , which is the zero mask-retention term already omitted in step 2.1; at , gives , so the conditional risk in step 3.1 is defined on the whole terminal event. Extended nonnegative sums preserve the cases from step 2.1, giving the stated equality.
Finite masked-diffusion generative model
Definition
For the finite masking state space and reverse kernels of the finite-grid sampler, put a point-mass prior at . Define a decoder from to by when , and for every when . The finite joint mass of a clean output and latent path is Thus reverse step maps the state at level to the state at level ; the decoder is deterministic on clean endpoint states and is explicitly normalized on all other states.
Definition references
Finite masking diffusion chain: fixes the finite vocabulary, mask, sequence length, grid, survival schedule, and sequence state space.
Finite-grid masked reverse sampler: supplies each reverse kernel and starts at .
Measure kernel and probability kernel: a probability kernel supplies normalized transition rows.
Finite masked-diffusion joint model is normalized
Statement
Let be finite and nonempty, , , and . Let be probability kernels on , put prior mass one at , and let when and otherwise. Then the finite joint mass is nonnegative and sums to one over and .
Statement references
Finite masked-diffusion generative model: defines the terminal point mass, reverse-kernel product, normalized decoder, and joint mass.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The finite generative joint mass and the sampler's probability kernels. Prove the total joint mass is one.
Finite-grid masked sampler defines a normalized law: each reverse-kernel row is a probability vector.
Proof
For fixed , if then is a point mass; otherwise it assigns to each of the clean outputs. In both cases .
Sum [F1] first over , using step 1.1. Then sum over in , over in , and successively over in . Each inner sum is one by [F2], leaving . All sums are finite, so this iterated summation equals the total joint mass.
Every factor in [F1] is nonnegative, and step 2.1 shows the finite total mass is one. Therefore the displayed function is a probability law.
Forward path law is admissible for the finite masked model
Statement
Let be finite and nonempty, , , and . For each position, reverse step, state with a masked position, and clean token, assume . Fix , let be the forward path probability vector on conditioned on , let be the finite joint model mass, and put and . Then , wherever , and With weighted log terms set to zero where , as in the variational definition, is an admissible variational density for the finite joint target .
Statement references
Finite masked-diffusion generative model: the joint mass is the terminal point mass times the learned reverse kernels and the decoder.
Finite masking diffusion chain: the forward path starts at , masks are absorbing, and the terminal state is .
Variational family and evidence lower bound: admissibility requires support domination and absolute log-integrability for a finite positive normalizer.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The finite forward path law, the finite reverse generative model, the strict endpoints, and full-support clean-token vectors at every masked reverse state. Prove the forward path density is admissible for the model's conditional joint target.
Finite masking diffusion chain: a forward path starts at , each clean token either survives or becomes , and remains masked thereafter.
Finite-grid masked reverse sampler: reverse rows copy clean tokens and assign mass to a clean token from a masked position and to retaining the mask.
Finite masking-chain transitions define a probability law: is a normalized probability vector on the finite path space.
Finite masked-diffusion joint model is normalized: the joint model mass is a probability vector, so .
Variational family and evidence lower bound: admissibility is and finite , with zero-density terms set to zero.
Proof
The forward survival ratios telescope to , so for each coordinate the event of remaining clean at has probability zero; hence every -positive path has , while the defining path mass forces . Fix such a path. A clean-to-clean forward transition copies its token, and the learned reverse row assigns that transition probability one. A clean-to-mask transition has learned reverse probability . A mask-to-mask transition can occur only for , because is clean; then and its learned reverse probability . These are all positive-probability forward transitions by [F1]. Thus every factor in the learned reverse path mass is positive, and the terminal prior and clean-state decoder are also positive; hence .
By [F3], at least one path has positive mass. Step 1.1 makes its joint model mass positive, so ; [F4] gives . On every -positive path, step 1.1 gives , hence and .
The path space is finite. On each of its finitely many -positive states, both and are positive finite real numbers, so both logarithms are finite. Their finite weighted sum is finite; on states the variational convention contributes zero. This verifies [F5] and proves admissibility.
Negative expected finite masked-diffusion ELBO is weighted cross-entropy
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let be finite and nonempty, , , , and let for a probability vector on . Put . Conditional on , let be the finite forward masking path law started at : at step , each clean coordinate survives with probability and otherwise becomes the absorbing mask , independently across coordinates. For every position , reverse step , state with , and token , assume , where each is a probability vector on . Put and . Define the reverse kernel by copying every unmasked coordinate and, independently across masked positions conditional on , assigning mass to and mass to each . Use the point mass at as terminal prior and the decoder when , while otherwise. Define For each , let whenever and define the finite ELBO . Here admissibility means is supported where and the finite weighted logarithm sums required for the ELBO are finite. Let be the conditional law of given , and let , with . For probability vectors on a finite set, write , with zero source terms set to zero and positive source mass against zero reference mass set to . Then , is admissible, and for every , Moreover, averaging over gives The reconstruction term and terminal-prior KL vanish here because the endpoints are exactly clean and all-masked; with approximate endpoints, the ordinary ELBO retains those terms and this corollary does not discard them.
Statement references
Finite masked-diffusion generative model: defines , the terminal point mass, decoder , and finite joint path mass.
Forward path law is admissible for the finite masked model: full support of makes and the forward path law admissible.
Masked-diffusion KL reduces to weighted cross-entropy: each averaged finite reverse-KL contribution equals the weighted conditional masked-token population risk.
Finite masking path law factors backward by its posterior rows: the positive forward path law factors in reverse order by its one-step posterior rows.
Evidence lower bound is log evidence minus reverse KL: under AC and admissibility, log evidence is ELBO plus the reverse KL and therefore bounds the ELBO above.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Choice, the exact finite masked chain and learned reverse model, the full-support hypothesis, the stated decoder/prior, and the finite ELBO definition. Prove admissibility, the ELBO identity and bound, and the averaged cross-entropy formula.
The Axiom of Choice: AC is the axiom that every family of nonempty sets has a choice function; it is used only through the library ELBO/KL theorem.
Finite masked-diffusion generative model: the reverse kernels, terminal prior, decoder, and joint mass define the model.
Finite masked-diffusion joint model is normalized: the finite joint model is a probability vector.
Forward path law is admissible for the finite masked model: for each clean , the forward path law is supported where and satisfies the variational absolute-log-integrability condition.
Variational family and evidence lower bound: admissible has finite evidence and log integrability, and its ELBO is .
Evidence lower bound is log evidence minus reverse KL: under AC and admissibility, , the log-ratio integral is the library divergence , and .
Finite masking path law factors backward by its posterior rows: on positive paths, .
Masked-diffusion KL reduces to weighted cross-entropy: the data-averaged sum of conditional reverse KL terms is the stated weighted cross-entropy risk.
Finite Kullback–Leibler divergence: for finite probability vectors, the directional KL is the finite expectation of the log likelihood ratio, with singular positive-mass terms equal to .
Proof
Fix and take counting measure on the finite path space . By [F2], has finite normalizer ; by [F3], and is admissible for . Under this counting measure, the induced probability laws assign singleton masses and . Admissibility gives , so the ratio integral in [F5] is the finite sum , which is exactly by [F8]. Applying [F5] with [A1] therefore gives and .
The forward path formula forces . For each coordinate, the product of forward survival ratios is , so the finite forward law assigns probability one to ; thus on every -positive path the decoder and prior factors in [F1] are both one. By [F6], on this path, and . Therefore is the sum of the reverse-step log ratios. By [F8], the conditional expectation of each log ratio is the negative finite KL term, so , where .
Average the identity from step 1.2 over . The resulting expected sum of is exactly the left side of the finite KL-to-risk identity in [F7]; substituting [F7] yields .
The endpoint cancellation in step 1.2 uses from and from . If either endpoint is changed, its decoder reconstruction or terminal-prior KL factor remains in the finite log-ratio expansion unless a separate hypothesis makes it vanish.
Factorization and finite-endpoint warnings
Remark
The learned sampler assumes conditional independence across positions at each reverse update. Forward masking is independent across positions only after conditioning on the clean sequence; marginalizing a dependent clean-sequence law can make the true reverse coordinates dependent, so a normalized learned sampler need not be the exact reverse law. The counterexample on the companion page gives a finite witness. The identities here concern a fixed finite grid only; they assert no continuous-time or zero-mesh limit, which would require separate convergence hypotheses. The weighted-cross-entropy ELBO identity uses the exact clean and all-mask endpoints and their matching decoder and prior; approximate endpoints retain their reconstruction and terminal-prior terms. Sahoo et al. label their zero-masking and carry-over substitutions as “RB techniques” and call the simplified objective “Rao–Blackwellized”; this finite identity makes no variance-reduction claim, because no estimator and conditioning comparison are specified here.
Remark references
A factorized reverse kernel fails for correlated tokens ↗: a two-token finite witness where the true reverse posterior is dependent but the learned reverse draw is a product.
Negative expected finite masked-diffusion ELBO is weighted cross-entropy: the exact-endpoint finite ELBO identity and the support condition for its finite proof.
Sahoo et al., §3.3 and Appendix B.1: the paper's objective simplifications using zero-masking and carry-over substitutions, termed “RB techniques.”
4 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
None yet.
Sources
- Subham Sekhar Sahoo et al., Simple and Effective Masked Diffusion Language Models, arXiv v1
- Jacob Austin et al., Structured Denoising Diffusion Models in Discrete State-Spaces
- David A. Levin and Yuval Peres, Markov Chains and Mixing Times, second edition
- Yury Polyanskiy and Yihong Wu, Information Theory: From Coding to Learning
- David M. Blei, Alp Kucukelbir, and Jon D. McAuliffe, Variational Inference: A Review for Statisticians
- Ronghuo Zheng, Zhiting Hu, and Yuntian Deng, CMU 10-708 Lecture 13: Variational Inference II