A noise-corrected Langevin algorithm and sampling by half-denoising
Authors: Aapo Hyvarinen
Venue: Accepted by TMLR ()

Abstract: The Langevin algorithm is a classic method for sampling from a given pdf in a real space. In its basic version, it only requires knowledge of the gradient of the log-density, also called the score function. However, in deep learning, it is often easier to learn the so-called "noisy-data score function", i.e. the gradient of the log-density of noisy data, more precisely when Gaussian noise is added to the data. Such an estimate is biased and complicates the use of the Langevin method. Here, we propose a noise-corrected version of the Langevin algorithm, where the bias due to noisy data is removed, at least regarding first-order terms. Unlike diffusion models, our algorithm only needs to know the noisy-data score function for one single noise level. We further propose a simple special case which has an interesting intuitive interpretation of iteratively adding noise the data and then attempting to remove half of that noise.

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
A noise-corrected Langevin algorithm and sampling by half-denoising
Aapo Hyvärinen
aapp.hyaartienn@hckiiii.f
Department of Computer Science University of Helsinki, Finland
Reviewed on OpenReview: https: // openreview. net/ forun? id= QG
Abstract
The Langevin algorithm is a classic method for sampling from a given pdf in a real space. In its basic version, only requires knowledge of the gradient of the log-density, also called the score function. However, in deep learning, is often easier to learn the so-called "noisy- data score function", i.e. the gradient of the log-density of noisy data, more precisely when Gaussian noise is added to the data. Such an estimate is biased and complicates the use of the Langevin method. Here, we propose noise-corrected version of the Langevin algorithm, where the bias due to noisy data is removed, at least regarding first-order terms. Unlike diffusion models, our algorithm only needs to know the noisy-data score function for one single noise level. We further propose a simple special case which has an interesting intuitive interpretation of iteratively adding noise the data and then attempting remove half of that noise.
1 Introduction
A typical approach to generative AI with data in R consists of estimating an energy-based (or score-based model of the data and then applying sampling method, typically MCMC. Among the different methods for learning the model of the data, score matching is one of the simplest and has achieved great succoss recently. In particular, denoising score matching (DSM) is widely used since it is computationally very compatible with neural networks, resulting in a simple variant of a denoising autoencoder (Vincent) 2011). The downside is that it does not estimate the model for the original data but for noisy data, which has Gaussian noise added to it. This is why it is difficult to use standard MCMC methods for sampling in such a case. Henceforth we call the score function for the noisy data the "noisy-data score function". We emphasize that the noisy-data score function does not refer to an imperfectly estimated score function which would be noisy due to, for example, a finite sample; it is the exact score function for the noisy data, since this is what DSM gives in the limit of infinite data.
A possible solution to this problem of bias is given by diffusion models (Croitoru et al. 2023 Yang et al. 2023), which are used in many of the state-of-the-art methods (Rombach et al. 2022]. Diffusion models need precisely the score function of the noisy data; the downside that they need it for many different. noise levels. Another solution
estimate the noisy-data score for different noise levels and then extrapolate (anneal) to zero noise (Song and Ermon 2019). However, such learning necessitating many noise levels is computationally costly.
One perhaps surprising utility of using the noisy-data score function for sampling might be that it is a kind of regularized version of the true score function. In particular, any areas in the space with zero data will have a non-zero probability density when noise is added. This might lead to better mixing of any MCMC (Saremi and Hyvärinen| 2019 Song and Ermon] 2019),, and even improve the estimation of the score function [Kingma and Cun (2110). Hurault et al. (2025) analyze the error in sampling using DSM and Langevin in detail, considering the Gaussian distribution.

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
Here, we develop MCMC algorithm which uses the noisy-data score function, and needs it for single noise level only. This should have computational advantages compared to diffusson models, as well as leading to a simplified theory where the estimation and sampling parts are clearly distinct. In particular, we develop a noise-corrected Langevin algorithm, which works using the noisy-data score function, while providing samples from the original, noise-free distribution. Such a method can be seamlessly combined with denoising score matching. A special case of the algorithm has a simple intuitive intepretation as an iteration where Gaussian noise is first added to the data, and then, based on the well-known theory by Tweedie and Miyasawa, it is attempted to remove that noise by using the score function. However, only half of the denoising step is taken, leading to an algorithm based on "hall-denoising..
2
Background
We first develop the idea of denoising score matching based on the Treodic-Miyasawa theory, and discuss its application in the case of the Langevin algorithm.
2.1 Score functions and Sweedie-MMyysawe theory
We start with the well-known theory for denoising going back to Miyasawa (1961): Robbins al. (1956); see
Raphan and Simoncelli (2011) : Efron (2011) for modern treatment. and generalizations. They considered
the following denoising problem. Assume the observed data & is sum of original data and some noise
Now, the goal is recover x from an observation x. The noise is assumed Gaussian with covariance En.
An important role here is played by the gradient of the log-derivative of the probability density function (pdf) of &. We denote this for any random vector y E R* with pdf Py as:
( v, log (n)
which is here called the score function.
One central previous result is the following theorem, often called an "empirical Bayes" theorem. Robbins
ct al. (1566): Efron (011 attribute it to personal communication from Maurice Tweedic, which is why it is often called "Tweedie's 's formula", while it was also independently published by Miyasawa (1961).
Theorem (Tweedie-Miyysawa)
E[x[X] = (x)
(3)
For the sake of completeness, the proof given in the Appendix. The Theorem provides an interesting solution to the denoising problem, or recovering the original x, since it gives the conditional expectation which is known to minimize mean-squared error. In practice, the price to pay is that we need to estimate the score function s.
2.2 (Denoising) score matching
Another background theory we need is (non-parametric) estimation of the score function. Consider the problem of estimating the score function Vx of some data set. Suppose in particular that we use neural network to estimate Xxx Any kind of maximum likelihood estimation is computationally very difficult, since it would necessitate the computation of the normalization constant (partition function).
Hyvärinen (2005) showed that the score function can be estimated by minimizing the expected squared distance between the model score function (x; 0) and the empirical data score function Ex He further showed, using integration by parts, that such distance can be brought to relatively easily computable
2

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
form. Such score matching completely avoids the computation of the normalization constant, while provably providing a estimator that is consistent. However, due to the existence of higher-order derivatives in the objective, using the original score matching objective by Hyvärinen (2005) is still rather difficult in the particular case of deep neural networks, where estimating any derivatives of order higher than one can be computationally demanding (Martens el al. 2012). Therefore, various improvements have been proposed,
as reviewed by Song and Kingma (2021).
Denoising score matching (DSM) by Vincent 2011 provides particularly attractive approach in the context of deep learning. Given original noise-free data it learns the score function of noisy & with noise artificially added as in (1)- Interestingly, denoising score matching can be derived from Theorem | Since the conditional expectation is the minimizer of the mean squared error, we have the following corollary, proven in Appendix
Corollary 1 Assume we observe both x and &, which follow 4 with Gaussian noise n. The score function V of the noisy data is the solution of the following minimizalion problem
min Fx |1x (x
En (x)))1
(4)
We emphasize that unlike in the original Tweedie theory, it is here assumed we observe the original noise-free and add the noise ourselves to create self-supervised learning problem. Thus, we learn the noisy-data score function by training what is essentially a denoising autoencoder.
The advantage of DSM with respect to the original score matching that there are less derivatives; fact, the problem turned into a basic least-squares regression. The disadvantage that we only get the noisy-data score function xg This is a biased estimate, since what we want in most cases the original L x.
2.3 Langevin algorithm
The Langevin algorithm is perhaps the simplest MCMC method to work relatively well in E* The basic scheme is follows. Starting from random point Xo, compute the soquence:
X = x; p xxxx) + 22
(5)
where 4x = Vx log)(x) is the score function of x, μ is a step size, and D; is Gaussian noise from W( I). According to well-known theory, for an infinitesimal and in the limit of infinite 4, X, will be a sample from p. The assumption of an infinitesimal can be relaxed by applying a "Metropolisaadjustmen"" complicates the algorithm, and requires us to have access to the energy function as well, which may be the reason why such correction is rarely used in deep learning.
but that
If were able to learn the score function of the original x, we could do sampling using this Langevin algorithm. But DSM only gives us the score function of the noisy data. This contradiction inspires to develop a variant of the Langevin algorithm that works with V instead of vx
3 Noise-corrected Langevin algorithm
Now, we proceed propose a new "noise-corrected version of the Langevin algorithm. The idea of noise- correction assumes that have used DSM to estimate the score function of noisy data. This means istimate of the score function is strongly biased. While this bias is known, it is not easy to correct by conventional means, and a new algorithm seems necessary.
ITo clarify: here any function used as an argument for minimization. It denoted in same way the score functions, because eventually the optimum, it will he an estimate score function.
3

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
3.1 Proposed algorithm
We thus propose the following noise-corrected Langevin algorithm. Starting from random point Xo, com- pute the sequence:
Xx+1 Re + 1u + 22 02
(6)
with
x, = on,
nt n-~ ~ (O,,I)
Vt ~
(7)
where j is a stop size paramcter. The function xx is the score function the noisy data x created as in with noise variance being Σn I (As previous sections, we use here x without time index to denote the original observed data, and to denote the observed data with noise added, while the same letters with time indices denote related quantities in the MCMC algorithm.)
The main point is that this algorithun only needs the noisy-data score function vx. which would typically be given by DSM. The weight /2p - o² of the last term in the iteration (6) is accordingly modified from the original Langevin iteration ( where it was 22p. Clearly, we need to assume the condition
# #2 02
(8)
to make sure this weight is well-defined. Another important modification is that the right- right-hand side is applied on noisy version of Xt, adding noise n, to the x₃ itself at every step.
(6)
3.2
Theoretical analysis
3.2.1
Semi-heuristic argument
First, provide simple analysis of the behaviour of the algorithm P Since R,41 Xx+1 + 01441, this becomes
Add on both sides of Eq.
R2 + x + 22 0² uz on
(9)
We can collect the noise terms on the RHS together by defining
D. 22 22 0² + +
(10)
This new noise v. follows NO, I). Moreover, it is independent of &, and iid. over time. Thus, our algorithm implies the following iteration for x;
8 = (Xxx(()) 22
(11)
which is exactly an ordinary Langevin iteration for x,
We see that X, converges to sample noisy data from Ps, under the same conditions and reservations as an ordinary Langevin iteration. In other words, Px, + in the approximative sense of the Langevin algorithm. Now, we can simply deconvolve both sides this limit equation, and get Px. - Px. in heuristic sense. This provides a semi-heuristic proof that the algorithm samples from Px-
Of course, one can always use an iteration such as in Eq. II to sample & from the noisy distribution, given the noisy-data score. But then there is no straightforward way of computing the x, which is not obvious function of & By construction, our algorithm does compute the noise-free samples x, as well.
However, an alternative perspective to our algorithm is to notice that after running ordinary Langevin iterations with noisy-data score as in (TT), all that is needed is a single iteration of the new iteration (6) to get a sample from the noise-corrected algorithm, and thus the noise-free distribution. In fact, our algorithm was analyzed from this viewpoint by Beyler and Bach (2025), basod on an carlier preprint of our paper.
2I'm grateful to the Action Fditor, Atsushi Nitanda, for proposing the starting point of this analysis.

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
3.2.2 Rigorous analysis
To more rigorously understand the behavior of the algorithm, we compare with what we call the Oracle Langevin. This means the ordinary Langevin iteralion where the true score function Vxx (i.e. of the noise-Tree data x) is known and used. Basically, our goal in this paper can be formulated as emulating the Oracle Langevin iteration while only knowing the score Vx of the noisy data.
Our main theoretical result is the following Theorem, proven in the Appendix:
Theorem
Denole the largel pdf by px and its score function as xx. Assume the following regularity conditions on the target distribution:
The score function xx has bounded norm, the bound being denoted as
Cy sup OERd
[x((a)]]
(12)
2. Px is at least bsice differentiable; Px and ils first lwo derivalives are square-integrable.
We are given the noisy-data score function Vx to be used in our algorithm where & follows 1 associaled pdf as P& and define the constant
Denote its
== ma=mlx(Cllpp Pxll2, Collex v2))12)
(13)
Consider the iteration of the algorithm proposed in Eq. O in the space of characteristic functions and at the true distribution Px. Fir any given value for &, the argument of the characteristic function Px. (E).
Then, one iteration of the proposed algorithm is equal to one iteration of the Orocle Langevin up to terms of order O(max(p*CC)) || "0"1"",""||""""""" +2
Thus, prove that our iteration removes the bias due to estimation of the score from the noise in the data X, up to higher-order terms, and at the true distribution Px- The results could presumably be extended to the vicinity of Px which would give some more higher-order terms in the approximation.
The regularity assumptions here are sufficient but not necessary. We note that Assumption [ i.e. a bounded score, is typically valid for super-Gaussee distributions (i.e. with heavy tails), such as the Laplace distri- bution. The addition of Gaussian noise implicit in V has little effect on the boundedness since it does not make heavy tails any lighter. The regularity condition in Assumption 2 is arguably a rather general smoothness constraint. We would further conjecture that C. has order o² conditions to be determined, and thus the error would be essentially μ²a
under suitable regularity
It is well-known that an infinitesimal step size necessary in the Langovin algorithm for proper convergence, and a non-infinitesimll step size creates a bias, often of 0(4), see e.g., Vempala and Wibisono (2019). From that viewpoint, approximating Oracle Langevin with (p²²) could be considered very accurate and is unlikely to create much more bias. (Here, an infinitesimal step size implies that the noise level is infinitesimal, since the two are related by the condition (8).)
Admittedly, the theorem above has serious limitations, since it is only about a single step and starting from the correct distribution. Hopefully, it can serve as a starting point for a more rigorous analysis. Indeed, Beyler and Bach 2025 provide a more rigorous analysis, inspired by an carlier preprint version of our paper.
We also give a detailed analysis for the Gaussian case in Appendix E. The main additional result that the algorithm converges, up to higher-order terms, the same distribution as Oracle Langevin. In other words, the bias due to noisy-data score is cancelled, up to higher-order terms. Furthermore, in the Gaussian case, we can actually prove such convergence, and this convergence is global.
3.3 Special case: Sampling by half-denoising
A particularly interesting special case of the iteration in 6 is obtained when we set the step size
2
(14)
5

---

"Oracle Langevin", as defined above, uses the ordinary Langevin method together with the true score function x (i.e. of the noise-free data x). This is against the main setting of our paper, and arguably unrealistic in deep learning where DSM is typically used. However, it is useful for analyzing Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
This is the smallest μ allowed according 8 given noise level o². In many cases, it may be useful to use this lower bound since larger step size in Langevin methods leads to more bias.
In this case the noise N3 is cancelled, and we are left with a simple iteration:
X x, + o² (x,)
(15)
2
with
x Xx one, nt 1),
(16)
where, as above, xx is the score function of the noisy data and o² is the variance of the noise in Vx typically coming from DSM.
Now, the Tweadie-Miyssawa theorem in Eq. (3] tells us that the optimal noulinearity to reduce noise is quite similar to 15 but crucially, such optimal denoising has a² the coefficient of the score function (for isotropic noise) instead of o² that we have here. Thus, the iteration in Eq. [5) can be called half-denoising
4
Experiments
Data models We use two different scenarios. The first is Gaussian mizture model in two dimensions. Two dimensions was chosen so that we can easily analyze the results by kernel density estimation, as well as plot them. A GMM is a versatile family which also allows for exact sampling as a baseline. The number of kernels (components) is varied from to 4; thus the simulations also include sampling from a 2D Gaussian distribution. The kernels are isotropic, and slightly overlapping. The variances of the variables in the resulting data were in the range [0.5,1.5]. We consider two different noise levels in the score function, a higher one (o² 0.3) and lower one (o 0.1). These considered typical in DSM estimation.
The second scenario is Gaussian model in higher dimenssions. The Gaussian data was white, and the dimen- sion took the values 5,10,100. Only the higher noise level (a² = 0.3) was considered.
MCMC algorithms The starting point is that we only know the noisy-data score function (i.e. the score function for noisy data), and for one single noise level. Using that, we sample data by the following two methods:
"Proposed" refers to the sampling using half-denoising and the noisy-data score function as in 15 16). Assuming the noisy-data score function is estimated by DSM, this the method we would propose to generate new data.
"Basic Langevin" uses the ordinary Langevin method in (5) together with the noisy-data score function, since that assumedd to be the only one available. This the (biased) baseline method that could be used for sampling based on DSM and the ordinary Langevin algorithm.
As further baselines and bases for comparison, we use:
the sources of errors in our method, and to validate the theory above.
"Ground truth" means exact sampling from the true distribution. This is computed to analyze the errors stemming from the methods used in comparing samples, described below.
Step sizes are chosen as follows. According to the theory above, the step size for the proposed method is implicitly given based on the noise level as in (14). For the baseline Langevin mothods, we use that same step size if nothing mentioned, but conduct additional simulations with another step size which is 1/4 of the above. This is to control for the fact that the basic Langevin method has the possible advantage

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2023)
Groundfitut
Proposed
a)
b)
c)
BasicLangevin
d)
OracksLangevin
Figure Kernel density estimates for some of the methods, for two kernels in GMM, and lower noise o² 0.1 in the score function. The proposed method achieves similar performance to the Oracle Langevin which uses the true score function, thus effectively cancelling the bias due to the noisy-data score function. The bias due to the non-infinitesimal step size is hardly visible.
that the step size can be freely chosen, and in particular can be made smaller to reduce the bias due the non-infinitesimal step size. Note that Oracle Langevin not identical for the noise levels precisely because its step size is here defined to be function of the noise level. Each algorithm was run for 1,000,000 steps.
Analysis of the sampling results In the main results (bias removal), the last 30% of the data analyzed as samples of the distribution; it is assumed here that this 30% represents the final distribution and all the algorithms have converged. (The mixing analysis described next corroborates this assumption.)
In the GMM case, we compute a kernel density cstimator for each sampled data set with kernel width 0.1, evaluated at grid with width of 0.1. We then compute the Euclidean (I,2) distance between the estimated densíties. In particular, we report the distances of the MCMC method from the ground truth sample, normalized by the norm of the density of the ground truth sample, so that the errors can be intepreted percentages (e.g. error of -1.0 in logın scale means 10% error). We further evaluate the accuracy of the distance evaluation just described by computing the distance between two independent ground truth sample data sets (simply denoted by "ground truth" in the distance plots). In the high-dimensional Gaussian case, in contrast, we compute the covariance matrices and use the Euclidean distances between them as the distance measure.
Additional analyses were conducted regarding the mixing speed. We took the GMM with two kernels above, but ran it in 10,000 trials with 100 steps in each. The algorithm distribution with small variance approximately half-way between the two kernels. Here, the convergence analyzod by looking at the Euclidean distance between the covariance of the sample and the true covariance, for each time point.
initialized
Gaussian
Results 1: GMM bias removal Basic visualization of the results is given in Figs and 2 which we will not comment any further.
Most importantly, the error in the proposed method is very similar the Oracle Langevin in the case where the step sizes are equal. This shows that almost all the bias in the method due the non-infinitesmmal step size, Oracle Langevin suffers from that same bias and has similar performance. Thus, removing the bias due to the noisy-data score successful
A comprehensive quantitative comparison is given in Fig. 3
7

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2023)
Groundfituh
Proposed
a)
b)
c)
BosicLangevin
d)
OracksLangevin
Figure 2: Like Fig. above, but for four kernels in GMM, and a higher noise level o² 0.3. Now, some bias due to non-infinitssimal step size is clearly visible even in Oracle Langevin. Still, the proposed method has very similar performance to Oracle Langevin, which is the main claim we wish to demonstrate.
since any possibly remaining noise-induced bias seems to be insignificant compared the bias induced by the step size. This corroborates the theory of this paper, in particular Theorem 2
The basic Langevin algorithm has, in principle, the advantage that its slep size can be freely chosen; however, we see that this does not give a major advantage (see curves with "mu/4") over the proposed method. In the noisy-data score case, reducing the step size improves the results of basic Langevin only very slightly; as already pointed out above, the bias due to the noisy-data score seems to be much stronger than the bias due non-infinitssmal step size. In contrast, in the case of the Oracle Langevin, we do see that small step size can sometimes improve results considerably, as seen especially in a), because reduces the only bias that the method suffers from, i.e. bias due non-infinitesimal step size. However, very small step size may sometimes lead to worse results, as in b), presumably due to slow convergence bad mixing, In any case, even Oracle Langevin fails to approach the level of the errors of "ground truth" (i.c. exact sampling, which has non-zero error due to the kernel densily estimation).
Results 2: High-dimensional Gaussian bias removal The results, shown in Fig. are very similar to the GMM case above. Again, we see that the proposed method has performance which is almost identical the Oracle Langevin with the same step size, in line with our theory. In terms of sampling performance, the proposed method clearly beats the basic Langevin. Only the Oracle Langevin with smaller step size is better, and only in high dimensions (arguably, it could be better in low dimensions as well if the step size were carefully tuned and/or more steps were taken).
Results 3: Mixing speed analysis Fig. shows that the noise-corrected version mixes with equal speed to the basic Langevin. fact, the curves are largely overlapping (e.g. solid red vs. solid blue) for the noise-corrected version and the basic Langevin, in the beginming of the algorithm. However, soon the plain Langevin plateaus due the bias, while the proposod algorithm reduces the error further. Thus, no mixing speed seems to be lost due to the noise-correction.
8

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
-0.50
a)
Proposed
BasicLangevin BaskcLvin muld
Oraclet Lnngevnn
-0.75
DraclaLvin muj4
GroundTruth
relative log10 error
1.00
-1.25
dataset (number of kernels in GMM)
b)
Proposed
BasicLangevin
Basicivin mu/4
OracleLangevin
OracleLvii mul4
GroundTruth
relative log10 error
-1.0
-1.2
-16
2
dataset (number of kemels in GMM)
Figure 3: Gaussian 2D mixture model data: Euclidean log-distances between the kernel density estimates for the different sampling methods and the kernel density estimate of the ground truth. a) shows the results for higher noise level (o² 0.3) and b) for lower noise level (a² = 0.1) in the score function. Error bars (often too small to be visible) give standard errors of the mean. The curve with label "Ground truth" refers to the distance between two different data sets given by exact sampling; it is far from zero due to errors in the kernel density estimation used in the distance calculation. The different plots for Langevin use different use the same step size as the proposed half-denoising, while the variants short for "Langevin"). Note that the step sizes for the Oracle Langevin curves are different a) and b) although the methods are otherwise identical in the two plots; one the other hand, the ground truth is independent of the noise level and thus identical in a) and b).
step sizes: BBasic/OracleLangg with "mu/4" use a slep size which one quarter of that ("Ivin" "

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/202))
relative log10 error
-1.0
Proposed
Basi claneeann
Basi clvin mu/4
-2.0
Orac eLangevin
Orac eLvin muié GroundTruth
dataset (dimension of Gaussian distribution)
Figure 4: High-dimensional Gaussian data. Euclidean log-distances between the covariance estimates for the different sampling methods and the covariance estimate of the ground truth. Methods and legend as in Fig. 3 here shown for higher noise level (o² = 0.3) only. ("Proposed" curve may be difficult to see since it is largely under the angeveLn curve.)
0.0
Proposed HighVar
Proposed LowVar
Langevin HighVar
Lvin HighVaar mu/4
Langevin LowVar
Lvin LowVar mu/4
relative log10 error
-1.5
10
25
30
70 75 iteration index
50
90
95 100
Figure 5: Analysis of mixing speed. The Euclidean log-distances (errors) as a function of iteration count, averaged over 10,000 runs, for a GMM with two kernels. Algorithm legends as in Fig. 3 but here we have the two different variance levels ("HighVar" and "LowVar")) in a single plot.
10

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
5 Related methods and future directions
It is often assumed that an annealed version of the Langevin algorithm is preferable in practice to avoid the algorithm get stuck in local modes (Lee et al. 2018). A method for annealing the basic Langevin method combined with score matching using different noise levels was proposed by SSng and Ermon (2019) and its converge was analyzed by Guo et al. (2024). Our method could easily be combined with such annealing schedules. If the noisy-data score function were estimated for different noise levels, an annealed method would be readily obtained by starting the iterations using high noise levels and gradually moving to smaller ones. However, special annealing method could be obtained by using single estimate of the noisy-data score, while increasing the parameter o² in the iteration, now divorced from the actual noise level in Mx, from zero to 2/ in the iteration in Eq. ( We leave the utility of such annealing schedules for future research.
Saremi and Hyvärinen 2019) proposed a hcuristic algorithm, called "walk-jump" sampling, inspired by the Tweedie- Mageeiiv- formula. Basically, they sample noisy data using ordinary Langevin, and then to obtain a sample of noise-free data, they do the full Tweedie- -aoeddiw-ayyaaaaa denoising. While there is no proof that this will produce unbiased samples, in further work, Frey et al. (2024) Saremi et al. [2023 Pinheiro et al. (2023)
have obtained very good results in real-life application with such an iteration, mostly using an underdamped
variant. A comparison of walk-jump and our method has been provided by Beyler and Bach (2025) Related methods have been proposed by [engio et al. (2013) and Jain and Poole (2022). Likewise, diffusion models use denoising as an integral part. Conncctions those methods with our method are an interesting question for future work. However, our method distinguishes itself by denoising only "half-way". Some further connection might be found between our method and underdamped Langevin methods (Dockhorn et al., 2021). In particular, an underdamped version of our method would be an interesting direction for future research.
We should also mention strand of work that consider that the score function has noise added in it, as in finite-sample estimation of the score function (Ma et al. 2015 Zhang et al. 2022). This is of course very different from the bias due to noise added to the data, as considerered here. Another line work, which could be relevant to develop extensions of our method, is DSM using non-Gaussian noise (Deasy et al. 2021
6 Conclusion
In generative deep learning, the score function usually estimated by DSM, which leads to a well-known bias. If the bias is not removed, any subsequent Langevin algorithm (or any ordinary MCMC) will result in biased sampling. In particular, the samples will come from the noisy distribution, that is, the original data with Gaussian noise added, which is obviously unsatisfactory in most practical applications. Therefore, we propose here how to remove that bias, i.e,, how to sample from the original data distribution when only the biased ("noisy"") score function learned by DSM is available. In contrast to, for example, diffusion models, only the score function for one noise level is needed. We analyze the convergence in the usual limit cases (infinite data in learning the score function, infinitesimal step size in the sampling), by showing that the algorithm is equivalent to an Oracle Langevin algorithm, Le. Langevin used with the true score. Simple experiments on simulated data confirm the theory.
References
Bengio, Y., Yao, I.,, Alain, G., and Vincent, P. (2013). Generalized denoising auto-encoders as generative models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26.
Beyler, E. and Bach, F. (2025). Optimal demoising in score-based generative models: The role of data regularity. arXiv preprint STTi:2503.12966
Croitoru, F.-A., Hondru, V., Ionescu, R. T., and Shah, M. (2023). Diffusion models in vision: A survey, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.
Deasy, J., Simidjievski, N., and Liò, P. (2021). Heavy-tailed denoising score matching. ar preprint arXiv:2112.0972
11

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
Dockhorn, T., Vahdat, A., and Kreis, K. (2021). Score-based generative modeling with criticallydammedd langevin diffusion. arXiv preprint
Efron, B. (2011). Tweedie's formula and selection bias. Journal of the American Slatistical Associalion, 106(496):1602 1614.
Frey, N. C., Berenberg, D., Zadorozhny, K., Kleinhenz, J., Lafrance- Vanasse, J., Hotzel, I., Wu, Y., Ra, S., Bonneau, R., Cho, K., Loukas, A., Gligorijevic, V., and Saremi, S. (2024). Protein discovery with discrete walk-jump sampling. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
Guo, W., Tao, M., and Chen, Y. (2024). Provable benefit of annealed langevin monte carlo for non-log- concave sampling. arXiv preprint orXiv:2407.16936
Hurault, S., Terris, M., Moreau, T., and Peyré, G. (2025). From denoising score matching to langevin sampling: A fine-grained error analysis in the gaussian setting. arXiv preprint #XXw:2503.11611
Hyvärinen, A. (2005). Estimation of non- non-normalized statistical models using score matching. J. of Machine Learning Research, 1069
Jain, A. and Poole, B. (2022). Journey to the baoab-limit: finding effective meme samplers for scoro-based models. In NearIPS 2022 Workshop on Score-Based Melhods.
Kingma, D. P. and Cun, Y. (2010). Regularized estimation of image statistics by score matching. Advances in neural informalion processing systems, 23.
Lee, H., Risteski, A., and Ge, R. (2018). Beyond log-concavity: Provable guarantees for sampling multi- modal distributions using simulated tempering langevin monte carlo. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31.
Ma, Y.-A., Chen, T., and Fox, E. (2015). A complete recipe for stochastic gradient meme. Advonces in neural information processing systems, 28.
Martens, J., Sutskever, I., and Swersky, K. (2012). Estimating the hessian by mack-proaggating curvature. Tn Proceedings of the 29th International Coference on International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 963-970.
Miyasawa, K. (1961). An empirical Bayes estimator of the mean of a normal population. Bull. Inst. Internat. Statist, 38181-1888)111.
Pinhciro, P. O., Rackers, J., Kleinhenz, J., Maser, M., Mahmood, O., Watkins, A., Ra, S., Sresht, V., and Saremi, S. (2023). 3d molecule generation by denoising voxel grids. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.
Raphan, M. and Simoncelli, F. P. (2011). Least squares estimation without priors or supervision. Neural computation, 33(2):374 420.
Robbins, H. et al. (1956). An empirical Bayes approach to statistics. In Proceedings of the Third Berke- ley Symposium on Mathematicall Statistics and Probability, Volume 1: Contributions to the Theory of Statistics. The Regents of the University of Californis.
Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esscr, P., and Ommer, B. (2022). High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on compuler vision and pallern recognition, pages 10684-10695.
Saremi, S. and Hyvärinen, A. (2019). Neural empirical Bayes J. of Machine Learning Research, 20(181):1-12.
Saremi, S., Srivastava, R. K., and Bach, F. (2023). Universal smoothed score functions for generative modeling. arXiv preprint 3rXiv:2303.11660
Song, Y. and Ermon, S. (2019). Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 11895-11907,
12

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
Song, Y. and Kingma, D. P. (2021). How train your energy- based models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.08255
Vempala, S. and Wibisono, A. (2019). Rapid convergence of the unadjusted langevin algorithm: Isoperimetry suffices. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32.
Vincent, P. (2011). A connection between score matching and denoising autoencoders, Neural computation, 2367):161111674
Yang, L., Zhang, Z., Song, Y., Hong, S., Xu, R., Zhao, Y., Zhang, W., Cui, B., and Yang, M.-H. (2023). Diffusion models: A comprehensive survey of methods and applications. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(4) (1(4:11- 39.
Zhang, R., Wilson, A. G., and De Sa, C. (2022). Tow-precision stochastic gradient langevin dynamics. International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 26624 26644. PMLR.
A Proof of Theorem 1
(Tweedie-Miyasawa)
We denote the pdf of for notational simplicity
((n) n) ( exp( 2 Σ n)
(17)
To prove the theorem, we start by the simple identity
px / (x))x))xxx)dxx
/ o( - x)xx-x)xxxx(x)
(18)
Now, take derivatives of both sides with respect to x to obtain
<x)x(x) /
Σn -x- - x))x(xx)xx
(19)
We divide both sides by (x()) and rearrange to obtain
x = / / En En'xx0(' 1 (x)x(x))/px(X))) / 'x'x008 - x)px(x)// /p1pp/pxppp (x)
=Σ / xp(x| - En'x / p(x(x)dx (20)
where the last integral is equal to unity. Multiplying both sides by En, and moving the last term to the left-hand-side, we get
B Proof of Corollary 1
Consider the general optimization problem:
min Ex [|]|x f(x)
(21)
and denote the optimal by f". By well-known properties of the conditional expectation,
f" (x) = =(xxx)
(22)
Now, considering the optimization in the Corollary:
min xx [|x (x En, (xx)
(23)
13

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
and denoting the optimal v by Li we find that
x+ Xn = [x
(24)
On the other hand, by the Tweedie Miyasaaaa Theorem, we have
[[x[ = x Σ, (x))
(25)
and combining these implies V = Vx Thus, solving the self-supervised learning problem in the Corollary estimates the score Vx of the noisy data &.
C Main proof of Theorem 2
Define random variable as
Yx =, + + (Xx,)
(26)
Assume at point where x, and thus also X, X. We drop the index for simplicity. This confounds the x₃ in the algorithm and as in the original data being modelled (and likewise for the noisy case), but the distributions are the same by this assumption so this is not problem.
Consider the characteristic function (Fourier transform of pdf) of y, and make a first-order approximation as:
By (E) By exp(iE"y) y) Exx exp(ie"xx &) exp(uit" {x(
=xx exp(it" x1 + pig" x x 2 +
(27)
where the last equality holds, especially regarding its higher-order terms, under the assumption of bounded score (Assumption [) as proven Lemma below. Now, we analyze the terms in this expansion.
First terms in RHS of (27) Elementary manipulations further give for the first two terms in brackets, multiplied by what is multiplying the brackets:
Öps (X) 0t,
Eg exp(ie" x1 |1 + wit" xx(x)) = Px(E) + pi expliE" x)
E
d%
(28)
Now, we use the well-known trick integration by parts, and we obtain
/ exp(it x)E
0px(x) dā,
dx Σ it3 / espplt (x))
-illEl]?ps())
(29)
Last terms in RHS of (27 Regarding the last term in 27 elementary manipulations give
Es exp(itexx(( xx()))² = =5- 5 exp(1t (2) (2))))) (a
(30)
Let us denote
<(z) = =xx(z) - Px (z)
(31)
and
(z 2 (z) xz)
(32)
which are related to the bounding terms in 13 Now, consider simply the trace to see the order of the terms, and expand the matrix above as:
te( exppitt 2) 2) (2)))(()())))))))))((())(()))()) (x(2) px (z)dz)) exp((tt (irTz2244 xx)) (x(z)px(z)dz
exppii" (z) (z)c(2))
+2 exp(1E=2) 2) (2) (2) (z)d2 cxp(iE"2))x.(e 2))²(())"
())))2)"" (2)22((2)dd (33)
14

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
Consider now that the xx is bounded by assumption, and by Lemma L is bounded by the same constant Cy. Looking at the RHS, the second and third terms are of the order of the two terms defining C. in (13 while the fourth term of lower order (with e²). Thus, the residual terms coming from omitting the other
terms than the first one in (33), considering that they are multiplied by 2e² in 27 become CepCEl
Denote the matrix integral in the first. term by M(E) exp(it" 2) ( (2)² Px Pz(z)dz; this matrix is bounded by assumption of bounded score.
Putting the results together
Thus we have proven the following form for (27
1 "0"--"""""" Omaax
(E) (x( +
(34)
Using the well-known formula for the characteristic function of Gaussian isotropic noise of variance o², we have:
(x(E) (E) exp( -
100pp-50011 (1)111
(35)
Thus, can calculate the characteristic function of X++1, which denote by p+, by multiplying Py by the characteristic function of the Gaussian isotropic noise with variance 24 o², and obtain
(2 12 (E) = (5) exp(
(E) exp( 1
(11)
2u² 2 ( 1 (0 (CCII))))))))
1
= (E) exp(-ull
/ [|1])) S exp( (2 (2 (0laalii))0mmm((0(0))(
1
O C 1E]1 CA
= exp(<)) Ml|E)1? / M( + O0 IE (c.ll(1))))) (36)
where in the last equality, have got rid of the remaining exponential term since it is equal to O()), and the (()) resilts as terms of Og 3 [[]] in O term.
Now, the terms with o² have disappeared, and no noisy-data score is left in the equation (except in the higher-order terms). So, the iteration is always equal to the same iteration with o² = 0 and the original score, up to the higher-order terms. But such an iteration is exactly the Oracle Langevin iteration. Thus, one iteration in the algorithm is equal to one iteration of Oracle Langevin, up to the higher-order terms given above, if the algorithm is at the true distribution of Px.
Lemmas used in Theorem 2
Next, we prove the two Lemnas used in the in the proof of Theorem
Lemma 1 Assume that the norm of the score |xll is bounded by Cy. Then, the first-order approrimation in 27 has error 0( in the limit of infinitesimal μ.
Proof of Lemma: The sum of the terms in the Taylor expansion of order higher than two, Lee omitted in the approximation,
(ni)mM (5 (X)))
(37)
m=3 m!
which, when combined with the expectation gives the remainder term, denote it by a, as
(ui)
(wi)
a = Ex
e
Σ
mn! (5 4 (X))
Ex exp(it xx)(( (x())))
(38)
m!!
m
15

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
This can be bounded using elementary inequalities as follows:
oc
n Ex
nM S
|a| -
Σ m!!
cxp(iE
Ex exp(it"x))
m!
E2 2 (x))
Ex (IE
P & (x)1))
|| Ex (x*)] 1m
m!!
m=3
m==3
m=
(μCo|lEl)) = f(uOullleeee lEll (39)
where the last inequality we have used Lemna 2 which says that vx is bounded by the samee Co as xx We also see that the function
1
f(z) exp(2) - 1 cxp(())))>>--
(40)
is increasing and it vanishes at zero where its first and second derivatives vanish well. Thus, for small enough μ, it behaves cubically, and our Taylor approximation is valid. O
Lemma 2 If vx is bownded, so is xx and by the same constant.
Proof: We first prove
L x EE M ( =y
(41)
which is perhaps well-known, and can be proven as follows. We start by a simple identity:
log ((x x) logp((x(x) log = log ofx xx + log px Px(x)
(42)
Next, we take the derivatives of both sides with respect to x, as opposed to x in the proof of Miyasawa-
Tweedie. We obtain
Vx Volggp(&xx) x) Ex x) Vx (x)
(43)
We multiply both sides by p(x(x) and integrate over x:
f
11 En [[E[[x(x]]] E(V, (x))x
(44)
Applying the Miyasawa-TTwediie theorem, we see that the term in brackets becomes
E(x|x) Σ, (X)
(45)
Therefore, taking account of the fact that V x) V logg(x(()
44
becomes
f [Vxxlopp((x)))))XX)) = x* - x
(46)
Regarding the left-hand side, we note it is the expectation of the gradient of the log-pdf, which well known be always zero. To see this, consider for simplicity the integral without conditioning to obtain
/ [(Vxlog(())p(())
Vvr(x)dx=0 0.
(47)
Now, if 4x on the RHS is bounded, so is its (conditional) expectation, and by Thus, we have proven [1
the same constant, which proves the Lemma. D
16

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
E Analysis of the Gaussian case
Let us consider the Gaussian case. Assume the algorithm is initialized at Gaussian distribution, and we run the algorithm with some noisy Gaussian score:
xx(E)) -5x
(48)
Denote for simplicity x, by x (and same with v and n) and Xx+1 by x'. The iteration becomes
x' = x + (xx + 22 d²v
-== (x Fo) + 22 d²v
[ -I + - -Z In+ /2 - o²v
(49)
This iteration stays Gaussian and zero-mean, when started at such distribution, which assume in the following. So, we only need to analyze the covariance. Denote
M
[ - -Ix'
(50)
Denoting the covariance of the sampled by Σ, the covariance Ex cov(x') can be calculated as
Σx = MEM o²M² + (2 0²
(11)
To solve a fixed-point of this iteration, consider the EVD
M = UDMUT
(52)
and assume that the covariance of the sampled x, or E, can be expressed in the same eigenvectors as so the iteration in 51
Σ == UD
(53)
becomes
Σx = UD D + D'U U + BBn-o)UU0
(54)
and that Ex/ can be expressed with the same eigenvectors, and the iteration only consists of the diagonal entries
D Dr o (2p o²)I I)
(55)
which is stationary if
Dx I- I- 1o' M + (24-o2)1 o
(56)
and we can go back to the original matrices and see that the covariance the fixed point fulfills
== [I - M ('I + (2μ o d²)1]
(57)
which can be expanded by plugging in the definition of M as
= 1220 2 -
(2μ -2)1
=120 112 + 2 +1 =
=
(
1 2
= Ex Ht4 "
(58)
this point, note that a) the above calculations were exact, and b) the o² expresses solely the noise added in the itcration of the algorithm, while Σ is the score used in the algorithm, possibly for a different (incorrect) noise level. While in the definition of our algorithm the noise level in Σ is equal o², this
equation does not assume such equality, which will be useful in further analysis below.
17

---

Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025)
Now assume Σx
- is actually the score of the noisy data in the original specification of the algorithm: Σx Σx + I We make Taylor expansion for the matrix inverse
Σ - Ex I
1 ( =
(2x 2
M I+
112 (>x + o(
" I 0(22) Σx 2
(59)
Here, we see that the error (bias) in the covariance of the converged sample is "I for our algorithm. Such a bias is expected due to finite step size. Next, we compare this error with original Langevin and Oracle Langevin cases.
Original Langevin (misspecificd) The developments above are valid up to (58) for the original Langevin iteration, which would here be misspecified in the sense being applied using the noisy-data score function. (As noted, the effects of misspccifccatinn of the score function and the noisc-correction in the algorithm are separated in the developments above.) In particular, if o², corresponding to the noise-correction in that equation, is set to zero, we get the original Langevin. Then we have, when Eg is expanded so that in the score function, the noise is not zero:
1²2 = I "''x' 2 + = (Ex + I²1)
P "I+ 1² 2
[Ix o(u²²
Ex
10
M +
(60)
where we see that the error is greater than in our noise-corrected algorithm. Considering the step size equal to hall-denoising, i.e. μ = o² /2, we have
2μ P
(61)
2
i.c., the error in the original Langevin is exactly five times large as in algorithm. In other words, the error coming from misspesification of the score function is four times the error due to the non-infunitesimal step size.
Oracle Langevin The developments above are again valid up to 158 for Oracle Langevin, if o² that equation is set to zero, and further we set Eg = Ex in the score function. Then we have
Σ = Ex[I
2 "Dx"
1² 4
12 (Eg + o(H2) = Ex + "I 12x p(13) = Σx + I
0(p²) 0(1²)
(62)
4
where we see that the error is eractly the same as in our noisc-corrocted version (up to second-order terms in p). This further corroborates our claim on bias removal.
Convergence analysis Finally, proceed to brief convergence analysis in the Gaussian case. Suppose Eo is stationary point of the iteration in 51 Perturb it Eo + e. It is trivial to see that due to the linearity of 51 the iteration for the perturbation becomes
McM
(63)
and we only need to prove that this converges to zero. Consider the spectral norm of the matrices. We have
|e'll < |M]][[]||]]
(64)
so we only need to prove that the spectral norm of M is less than one. But Σg is positive definite, and thus, for a small enough p, M - - is positive definite and has spectral norm less than one. Thus, for any perturbation, not necessarily infinitesimal, the algorithm will converge to the same point, which was found above. This proves the global convergence of the algorithm in the case of Gaussian covariances. The assumptions made were that a) the step size is small enough, and b) the algorithm initialized as Gaussian (for example initialization at zero i.e. Gaussian with zero variance, is also valid).
18


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "sBaz22EruX", "reviewer": "Reviewer_2z9W", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": null, "confidence": null, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "The proposed method is novel and noteworthy. Compared to conventional DSM approaches, this paper introduces a more computationally efficient method. \n\nHowever, I have a few concerns outlined below:\n1. Regarding the noise-corrected Langevin algorithm, it is unclear whether the bias in this paper refers to bias caused by the discretization error of Langevin dynamics, or the bias caused by the discrepancy between the score functions of the noisy data and the clean data. Clarification on this point would be helpful.\n    \n2. Using Eq. (11), it appears that the proposed noise-corrected Langevin algorithm in Eq. (6) is equivalent to running Langevin dynamics on the noisy data $\\tilde{x}_t$ using Eq. (11), followed by a single corrective update using Eq. (6) at the final step. It is not clear to me how this single-step correction addresses either of the potential sources of bias mentioned above.\n    \n3. The implication of Theorem 2 is not clear to me. The theorem compares a one-step Langevin update on clean data with the proposed update in Eq. (6), which can be rewritten as:\n$x_{t+1}= \\tilde{x}_t + \\mu \\tilde{\\Psi}(\\tilde{x}_t) + \\sqrt{2\\mu - \\sigma^2} \\nu_t \n= x_t + \\sigma n_t + \\mu  \\tilde{\\Psi}(\\tilde{x}_t) + \\sqrt{2\\mu - \\sigma^2} \\nu_t \n= x_t + \\mu  \\tilde{\\Psi}(\\tilde{x}_t) + \\sqrt{2\\mu} \\nu_t$.\n\nThis suggests that the only difference between the per-step updates of the proposed method and the original Langevin algorithm lies in the score function. Given this, the error term w.r.t. $\\mu$ derived in Theorem 2 seems somewhat trivial. It is unclear how this analysis implies a reduction in either discretization bias or score mismatch bias.", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "Yes", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "paper_topic_and_main_contributions": "", "excitement": null, "reproducibility": null, "ethical_concerns": "", "main_review": "", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "summary_of_contributions": "This paper proposes a method for estimating the noisy score-matching function using the Tweedie-Miyasawa formula. Based on this, it introduces a noise-corrected Langevin algorithm aimed at reducing the bias caused by noisy score estimation (or the discretization of continuous Langevin dynamics). Morever, the paper characterizes the distributional gap between the proposed noise-corrected Langevin algorithm and the original Langevin algorithm.", "claims_and_evidence_yn": "Yes", "claims_explanation": "", "audience_yn": "Yes", "audience_explanation": "", "requested_changes": "Please see the concerns in Strengths And Weaknesses.", "broader_impact_concerns": "N/A", "additional_comments": "", "extra_scores": {}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "ETvvvibA5r", "reviewer": "Reviewer_SpXs", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": null, "confidence": null, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "### Strengths\n\nThe clever design of the algorithm allows to avoid solving a denoising problem.\n\n### Weaknesses\n\n* There is a lower bound on the stepsize: $\\mu \\geq \\sigma^2/2$. In general, in order for Langevin algorithm to converge, the stepsize needs to be small compared to the parameters. Thus, this implies that the noise level $\\sigma^2$ has to be small. Consequently, estimating the approximate noisy score function $\\Psi_{\\tilde{\\mathbf{x}}}$ will be (almost) as hard to compute as the original score $\\Psi_{\\mathbf{x}}$, hence the main goal of the proposed algorithm is not attained.\n* The statement of the main theorem is not clear.\n\n  * Why is the characteristic function considered?\n  * How is the argument of the characteristic function related to the iterates of the proposed Langevin algorithm?\n  * What does “one iteration of the proposed algorithm is equal to one iteration of the Oracle Langevin up to terms of order $O(\\cdot)$” mean? This should be clearly stated in the main part of the paper. One should not have to read the entire proof to understand the precise meaning.\n  * What happens if the norm of $\\xi$ is large? Given that the characteristic function can take any argument, the norm of $\\xi$ can be arbitrarily large. The similarity (let alone equality) between LMC and the proposed algorithm will not hold.\n* The comparison between LMC and the proposed algorithm must be more rigorous. The theorem, in its current form, is not informative and does not provide a practically useful or interpretable guarantee.", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "No", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "paper_topic_and_main_contributions": "", "excitement": null, "reproducibility": null, "ethical_concerns": "", "main_review": "", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "summary_of_contributions": "The paper proposes a version of Langevin Monte-Carlo to sample from certain target distributions using only the score function of noisy data samples. The authors prove a result stating equivalence between the iterates of their algorithm and the original Langevin algorithm.", "claims_and_evidence_yn": "No", "claims_explanation": "", "audience_yn": "No", "audience_explanation": "", "requested_changes": "The main theorem of the paper is not well-written and is mathematically non-informative. See the weakness section above.", "broader_impact_concerns": "n/a", "additional_comments": "", "extra_scores": {}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "55Rfi7okJs", "reviewer": "Reviewer_XFPg", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": null, "confidence": null, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "# Strengths\n- The idea itself is good.\n- The writing is well-structured and reasonably clear.\n- The experiments are promising.\n\n# Weaknesses\n- The theory is rather limited. It feels like a good, but incomplete, start at analysis. \n    * The theorem only gives a bound for the next step when starting from a sample from the target distribution:\n        - The whole point of using Langevin algorithms for sampling is to sample from a target distribution when starting from points out of the distribution.\n        - Ideally, we would like to see how samples from the algorithm get closer to the target distribution\n    * The error measure in terms of characteristic functions at fixed frequencies is somewhat non-standard. It would be more  compelling to compare the difference in distributions via more common measures (i.e. TV distance, Wassertein distance, KL divergence, etc.)\n    * Only a single step of the algorithm is analyzed. Due to the restrictions on the starting distribution, it does not seem obvious how to extend the analysis to multiple steps (since after the first step, it will be slightly out of the target distribution.)\n- The theorem statement is a bit hard to parse. In particular, an equation explicitly describing the error bound should be given. As it stands, I needed to read the appendix to even understand what error was being measured.\n- In light of the limited theory, I would hope for more thorough experimental results. In particular, I would think that some comparison to the discussed related methods should be given.", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "Yes", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "paper_topic_and_main_contributions": "", "excitement": null, "reproducibility": null, "ethical_concerns": "", "main_review": "", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "summary_of_contributions": "This paper presents a method for approximating the behavior of a Langevin method when only a particular biased estimate of the true score function (computed via denoising score matching) is known. It is shown that a step in the proposed method gives samples that are close in distribution to those of the Langevin method using the true score function. It is tested empirically, and appears to give accurate results.", "claims_and_evidence_yn": "Yes", "claims_explanation": "", "audience_yn": "Yes", "audience_explanation": "", "requested_changes": "# Critical Changes\n\nEither strengthen the theory so that it suffices to prove the method generates approximate samples from the target distribution **or** substantially increase the amount of computational evidence that this method is doing what is intended and gives reasonable improvement over existing methods.", "broader_impact_concerns": "None", "additional_comments": "", "extra_scores": {}, "extra_text": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Decision: Accept (poster)