Goto

Collaborating Authors

 intersect


Gradient Variance Reveals Failure Modes in Flow-Based Generative Models

Neural Information Processing Systems

Rectified Flows learn ODE vector fields whose trajectories are straight between source and target distributions, enabling near one-step inference. We show that this straight-path objective reveals fundamental failure modes: under deterministic training, low gradient variance drives memorization of arbitrary training pairings, even when interpolant lines between training pairs intersect. To analyze this mechanism, we study Gaussian-to-Gaussian transport and use the loss gradient variance across stochastic and deterministic regimes to characterize which vector fields optimization favors in each setting. We then show that, in a setting where all interpolating lines intersect, applying Rectified Flow yields the same specific pairings at inference as during training. More generally, we prove that a memorizing vector field exists even when training interpolants intersect, and that optimizing the straight-path objective converges to this ill-defined field.



Replicability in Learning: Geometric Partitions and KKM-Sperner Lemma

Neural Information Processing Systems

Recent works have revealed the role of geometric partitions and Sperner's lemma (and its variations) in designing replicable learning algorithms and in establishing impossibility results. A partition $\mathcal{P}$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$ is called a $(k,\epsilon)$-secluded partition if for every $\vec{p}\in\mathbb{R}^d$, an $\varepsilon$-radius ball (with respect to the $\ell_{\infty}$ norm) centered at $\vec{p}$ intersects at most $k$ members of $\mathcal{P}$. In relation to replicable learning, the parameter $k$ is closely related to the $\textit{list complexity}$, and the parameter $\varepsilon$ is related to the sample complexity of the replicable learner. Construction of secluded partitions with better parameters (small $k$ and large $\varepsilon$) will lead to replicable learning algorithms with small list and sample complexities. Motivated by this connection, we undertake a comprehensive study of secluded partitions and establish near-optimal relationships between $k$ and $\varepsilon$. 1. We show that for any $(k,\epsilon)$-secluded partition where each member has at most unit measure, it must be that $k \geq(1+2\varepsilon)^d$, and consequently, for the interesting regime $k\in[2^d]$ it must be that $\epsilon\leq\frac{\log_4(k)}{d}$. 2. To complement this upper bound on $\epsilon$, we show that for each $d\in\mathbb{N}$ and each viable $k\in[2^d]$, a construction of a $(k,\epsilon)$-secluded (unit cube) partition with $\epsilon\geq\frac{\log_4(k)}{d}\cdot\frac{1}{8\log_4(d+1)}$. This establishes the optimality of $\epsilon$ within a logarithmic factor.3. Finally, we adapt our proof techniques to obtain a new ``neighborhood'' variant of the cubical KKM lemma (or cubical Sperner's lemma): For any coloring of $[0,1]^d$ in which no color is used on opposing faces, it holds for each $\epsilon\in(0,\frac12]$ that there is a point where the open $\epsilon$-radius $\ell_\infty$-ball intersects at least $(1+\frac23\epsilon)^d$ colors. While the classical Sperner/KKM lemma guarantees the existence of a point that is adjacent to points with $(d+1)$ distinct colors, the neighborhood version guarantees the existence of a small neighborhood with exponentially many points with distinct colors.





043c2ec6c6390dd0ac5519190a57c88c-AuthorFeedback.pdf

Neural Information Processing Systems

Comment 3: I was skeptical that a rejection sampler would work as written in a space of even moderately high22 dimension ... does the hyperplane... still intersect a with reasonable probability? Thisleadstolongerruntimes. ForD =85,26 we are able to conduct inference with the rejection sampling, indicating that the interaction is still possible at this27 dimensionality. We will discuss or report on this new method in the31 camerareadycopy,shouldthisworkbeaccepted.32 Comment 5: What iflotsofthetestdata isoutside thecollection ofconvexpolytopes?When weform convexhulls,33 we consider a version of the training data that includes the predictors of the testing data. Testing data lying outside34 of the convex hulls formed by the training data will be'snapped to the nearest' polytope.