Diffusion-based generative models have reformed generative AI, and have enabled new capabilities in the science domain, for example, generating 3D structures of molecules. Due to the intrinsic problem structure of certain tasks, there is often a symmetry in the system, which identifies objects that can be converted by a group action as equivalent, hence the target distribution is essentially defined on the quotient space with respect to the group. In this work, we establish a formal framework for diffusion modeling on a general quotient space, and apply it to molecular structure generation which follows the special Euclidean group $\text{SE}(3)$ symmetry. The framework reduces the necessity of learning the component corresponding to the group action, hence simplifies learning difficulty over conventional group-equivariant diffusion models, and the sampler guarantees recovering the target distribution, while heuristic alignment strategies lack proper samplers. The arguments are empirically validated on structure generation for small molecules and proteins, indicating that the principled quotient-space diffusion model provides a new framework that outperforms previous symmetry treatments.

A plethora of methods was developed for solving this problem, including the celebrated do-calculus [Pearl, 1995]. In practice, these results are not always applicable since they require a fully specified causal diagram as input, which is usually not available.

Lasso performance, with the added benefit of providing multiple solutions.

In this paper, we find, supported by both theoretical analysis and empirical evidence, that score-based methods with exact search can naturally address the issues of deterministic relations under rather mild assumptions. Nonetheless, exact score-based methods can be computationally expensive.

These results are then generalized to general models and likelihoods, where the same claims hold.

Our primary focus is the identification of the latent structure in measurement models without parametric assumptions such as linearity or Gaussianity.

A.1 Deriving the Optimum of the KL-Constrained Reward Maximization Objective In this appendix, we will derive Eq. 4. Analogously to Eq. 3, we optimize the following objective: max