What does guidance do? A fine-grained analysis in a simple setting

Authors: muthu  chidambaram
khashayar  gatmiry
  mit
sitan  chen
holden  lee
jianfeng  lu
Venue: NeurIPS_cc_2024_Conference
Published: 2024-05-15 17:38:11

Abstract: The use of guidance in diffusion models was originally motivated by the premise that the guidance-modified score is that of the data distribution tilted by a conditional likelihood raised to some power. In this work we clarify this misconception by rigorously proving that guidance fails to sample from the intended tilted distribution. Our main result is to give a fine-grained characterization of the dynamics of guidance in two cases, (1) mixtures of compactly supported distributions and (2) mixtures of Gaussians, which reflect salient properties of guidance that manifest on real-world data. In both cases, we prove that as the guidance parameter increases, the guided model samples more heavily from the boundary of the support of the conditional distribution. We also prove that for any nonzero level of score estimation error, sufficiently large guidance will result in sampling away from the support, theoretically justifying the empirical finding that large guidance results in distorted generations. In addition to verifying these results empirically in synthetic settings, we also show how our theoretical insights can offer useful prescriptions for practical deployment.

Main paper: 
 introduction: 
 With diffusion models having emerged as the leading approach to generative modeling in domains like image, video, and audio [31, 34, 18, 12, 33, 35, 36, 29, 26] , there is a pressing need to develop principled methods for modulating their output. For example, how do we impose certain constraints on generated samples, or control their "temperature"? To formalize this, suppose one has access to an unconditional diffusion model approximating the data distribution p, as well as a conditional diffusion model approximating the conditional distribution p(• | z) for various choices of class labels or prompts z. 3 Given z and a parameter w, one might wish to sample from the distribution p tilted by the conditional likelihood, i.e. the distribution p z,w with density p z,w (x) ∝ p(x) • p(z | x) 1+w . (Throughout, we use lower-case letters to denote densities, and capital letters to denote distributions.)By varying w, we can naturally trade off between diversity and quality: If w = -1 then p z,w is the unconditional distribution, if w = 0 then p z,w is the conditional distribution p(• | z) by Bayes' rule, and as w → ∞, p z,w converges to being supported on the maximizers of the conditional likelihood. In practice, the standard approach to try to sample from the tilted distribution is to use diffusion guidance [13, 19] . The idea for this is roughly as follows. To sample from a given distribution using diffusion generative modeling, one numerically solves a certain ODE or SDE whose drift depends on the score function, i.e. gradient of the log-density, of p convolved with various levels of Gaussian noise. By definition, the score function of p z,w satisfiesEQUATIONAssuming we have access to approximations of both terms on the right, we can run the corresponding ODE or SDE whose drift can be computed using the above to approximately sample from p z,w .There is however one fundamental snag in the reasoning above. The aforementioned ODE or SDE involves the score function at different noise levels, i.e. we would need access to ∇ log p z,w t , where we use the notation q t to denote the distribution given by running a certain noising process (see Section 2.1) for time t starting from a distribution q. Here p z,w t means we tilt before adding noise, that is, we take q = p z,w and then apply noise to q. Unfortunately, as soon as t > 0, the analogue of Eq. (1) no longer holds, i.e.∇ log p z,w t ̸ = -w∇ log p t + (1 + w)∇ log p t (• | z) .(EQUATIONIn other words, the operation of applying noise to p and the operation of tilting it in the direction of the conditional likelihood do not commute. Nevertheless, in practice it is standard to use the right-hand side of Eq. ( 2) as an approximation [13, 19] . Sampling using this approximation is called diffusion guidance.Intriguingly, for appropriate choices of w, this heuristic results in generations with high perceptual quality. Yet despite the popularity and empirical success of guidance, our theoretical understanding of this approach is lacking. In this work, we ask:What distribution is diffusion guidance actually sampling from?A motivating example. To see clearly that diffusion guidance is not simply sampling from the tilted distribution, consider the following simple setting. Suppose that there are only two classes z = -1 and z = +1, and that the corresponding conditional distributions p(• | z = -1) and p(• | z = +1) have disjoint supports Ω -, Ω + . In this case, the conditional likelihood is simply given by p(z= i | x) ∝ 1[x ∈ Ω i ].In particular, the conditional likelihood is binary-valued, which implies that for any w > 0, the tilted distribution p z,w is exactly the same! On the other hand, as Figure 1 shows, increasing w changes the distribution of generated samples to concentrate towards the edge of the support of the guided class.This simple example already reflects two properties of diffusion guidance that manifest on real-world data as the guidance parameter w increases:• Drop in diversity: The entropy of the distribution over generated samples resulting from diffusion guidance tends towards zero. • Divergence towards "archetypes": The generated outputs drift more and more to the extreme points in the support of the conditional distribution p(• | z = i) to which the diffusion model is being guided. Note that these extreme points do not necessarily coincide with the set of maximizers of the conditional likelihood, as our example shows.These phenomena are surprising because we have shown that they can occur even when the conditional likelihood contains no geometric information about the data distribution: in our example, all points x ∈ Ω + have the same conditional likelihood under p(z = +1 | x), so it is not at all clear why the sampling process should end up preferring points in Ω + which are furthest from points in Ω -.In this work, we hone in on simple settings in which we can precisely characterize the dynamics of diffusion guidance and explain this counterintuitive behavior. Our main result is to execute such an analysis for mixtures of compactly supported distributions: Theorem 1 (Compactly supported setting, informal -see Theorem 4) . Consider a data distribution p = 1 2 p (1) + 1 2 p (-1) where p (1) , p (-1) are β-bounded and supported on disjoint intervals [α 1 , α 2 ] and [-α 2 , -α 1 ] respectively (see Assumption 1) . Suppose that one runs the probability flow ODE with guidance parameter w which is larger than some absolute constant. Then with probability 1 -e -Ω(w) , the resulting sample lies in the intervalEQUATIONwhere the O(•) notation hides constants depending on α 1 , α 2 , β.We also conduct this analysis in a setting where the conditional distributions p (1) and p (-1) do not have compact support by proving an analogous result for mixtures of Gaussians. The proofs in this setting turn out to be somewhat simpler: Theorem 2 (Gaussian setting). Consider the data distribution p = 1 2 N (1, 1) + 1 2 N (-1, 1). Suppose that one runs the probability flow ODE with guidance parameter w which is larger than some absolute constant. Then if the resulting sample is denoted by x(1), we have P(x(1) ≥ 0) ≥ 1 -e -Ω(w 2 ) P(x(1) ≥ √ w) ≥ 1 -e -Ω(w) .Theorems 1 and 2 illustrate that diffusion guidance results in a strong bias towards points in the support of one conditional distribution which are far from points in the support of the other.These results apply even when the unconditional and conditional diffusion models in question incur zero score estimation error. One shortcoming however is that they fail to corroborate a third commonly observed behavior of guidance in practice:• Degradation when guidance is too large: In practice, even ignoring issues of diversity, there is typically a "sweet spot" for the choice of w such that past that point, the quality of the generated output begins to degrade.Next, we show how to leverage ideas in the proof of Theorem 1 to explain this degradation. Concretely, we give a simple example where a small perturbation to the score estimate at the tails of the data distribution is enough to take the sampling trajectory given by diffusion guidance far away from the trajectory predicted by Theorem 1:Theorem 3. Given 0 < ϵ < 1, assume w ≥ Ω( log log(1/ϵ)), where the hidden constant factor is sufficiently large. There exist densities p (1) , p (-1) satisfying the assumptions of Theorem t and s t respectively, then with probability at least 1 -e -Ω(w) , the resulting sample lies outside of the domain of p.In other words, for any level of score estimation error, if one takes the guidance parameter w to be too large, the sampler will end up going off the support of the data distribution p. Roughly speaking, the idea derives from the proof of Theorem 1. As we will see, one key feature of the guided ODE in the setting of Theorem 1 is that the trajectory first swings past the edges of the support of p and into the tails of the noised data distribution p t before returning. As a result, errors in score estimation at these tails can move the sampling process away from the intended trajectory and thus prevent the trajectory from ever returning to the support of p, leading to corrupted outputs. We stress that this phenomenon is not an issue of numerical precision: Theorem 3 applies even if one runs diffusion guidance with infinite precision.Taking inspiration from our theory, we posit that the optimal choice of guidance (from the perspective of sample quality) for compactly supported distributions that approximately satisfy the assumptions of our theory is the largest possible w for which the resulting trajectory does not exhibit this behavior of swinging away from the support of the data distribution and returning. Specifically, we propose a rule of thumb for selecting the guidance strength based on looking at a certain monotonicity property of the trajectory and experimentally validate this rule of thumb in both synthetic settings and on image classification datasets. Additionally, for compactly supported distributions that fall outside the scope of Theorem 1, we propose an alternative heuristic based on the ideas of Theorem 3: we should choose the guidance strength as large as possible while still ensuring that final samples are contained within the distribution support. See Section 3 for details.It has been observed previously [15, 20] that the score of the tilted distribution convolved with noise is different from what is used in diffusion guidance, i.e. Eq. ( 2). These works conclude informally that as a result, diffusion guidance should not be sampling from the tilted distribution. In contrast, our work gives rigorous justification for this and provides a fine-grained analysis of the behavior of diffusion guidance on simple toy examples, shedding new light on several key features of the dynamics of guidance.To our knowledge, only two prior works have sought to theoretically characterize the behavior of guidance, one by Wu et al. [37] and one by Bradley and Nakkiran [3] . Here we discuss the connection to these works in detail and briefly summarize some other relevant results.Comparison to Wu et al. [37] . This previous work studied the effect of the guidance parameter w when sampling Gaussian mixture models. They considered two summary statistics: the "classification confidence" and the "diversity" of the generated output.The former refers to the conditional likelihood p(z | x), where z is the index of the component of the Gaussian mixture model to which the sampler is being guided, and x is the generated output. They prove a comparison result showing that the classification confidence of the output of the guided sampler is at least as high as that of the unguided sampler, and they give some quantitative bounds on how much the former exceeds the latter. In particular, they prove that as w → ∞, the classification confidence tends to 1.As for diversity, they show that the differential entropy of the output distribution of the guided sampler is at most that of the unguided sampler, though they do not provide quantitative bounds on the extent to which the entropy decreases with w.Instead of studying summary statistics of the generated output, we instead give a fine-grained analysis of where exactly the trajectory ends up at different times in the reverse process. While we do not directly study classification confidence, note that in the setting of our main result, Theorem 1, for mixtures of compactly supported product distributions, the statement that classification confidence increases is uninformative because, as mentioned previously, the conditional likelihood for any point in the support of the target class is 1. The dynamics that we elucidate in our results can be thought of as a more geometric notion of classification confidence. As for diversity, implicit in our Theorems 1 and 2 are quantitative bounds on how the diversity decreases as w increases.Additionally, the analysis of how score estimation error impacts diffusion guidance, as well as our empirical findings on real data, are unique to our work.Comparison to Bradley and Nakkiran [3] . During the preparation of this manuscript, a very recent theoretical work [3] also studied the extent to which diffusion guidance fails to sample from the tilted distribution. They provided a simple example where the conditional likelihood p(z | x) is Gaussian (so that the tilted distribution is also Gaussian) and the probability flow ODE with guidance provably does not sample from the correct tilted distribution. Interestingly, they also study the reverse SDE with guidance and show that it behaves differently under this example than under the probability flow ODE with guidance.They also observed that diffusion guidance is equivalent to a predictor-corrector scheme where the predictor makes a step according to the conditional distribution p(x | z), and the corrector makes a step using Langevin dynamics with respect to the noised-then-tilted distribution.In addition, they considered the mixture of two Gaussians example that we study here. They provide numerical, but non-rigorous evidence that diffusion guidance results in a very different distribution than the tilted one. In contrast, we provide a rigorous analysis of the dynamics proving that this is the case. On the other hand, to our knowledge, the example of a mixture of distributions with compact support has not been considered previously, and the qualitative difference in the behavior of guidance in this setting versus under the mixture of Gaussians setting has not been reported in the literature.Sampling guarantees for diffusion models. Most of the theoretical literature on diffusion models has focused on unconditional sampling, e.g., proving that SDE diffusion models can efficiently sample from essentially arbitrary data distributions assuming L 2 -accurate score estimation [21, 7, 5, 4, 1, 9] . Note the notion of L 2 error matches the objective function used in practice. Similar results hold for the ODE under additional smoothness constraints or by using a corrector step [23, 22, 6, 24] .We also mention various recent works on understanding other aspects of diffusion models using mixture models, including provable score estimation [30, 10, 8, 17] and feature emergence [25] .Finally, an unrelated work that touches upon guidance and conditional generation is that of [16] . They give representational bounds on how well conditional score functions can be approximated by ReLU networks in nonparametric settings, which translate to sample complexity bounds for conditional score estimation. In their work, "classifier-free guidance" does not refer to the sampling process that we focus on (indeed, they take guidance parameter w = 0 so that the tilted distribution is simply the conditional distribution p(x | z)). Instead, it refers to the training of a neural network that simultaneously parametrizes the unconditional and conditional scores.2 Preliminaries and proof overview 2.1 Technical preliminaries Mixture models. We focus on data distributions p which are uniform mixtures of two constituent distributions, taking the formEQUATIONThroughout, we freely conflate probability measures with their densities. Here p (1) and p (-1) are meant to represent class-conditional distributions, and p is meant to represent the unconditional data distribution.We will denote a sample from p by the pair (x, z) where z ∈ {±1} specifies the class (±1 with probability 1 2 ). Given class z, the conditional distribution on x is given by p (z) .Here we briefly review some basics on diffusion models, specifically the probability flow ODE, tailored to the mixture model setting outlined above. Throughout, let t be a time variable which varies from 0 to some terminal time T , such that the output of the sampling algorithm is the iterate at time T .To formally introduce the probability flow ODE, we define the parameters a t = e -T +t , b t = 1 -a 2 t . Let p t (•) be the distribution of (a t x + ξ t , z) where x ∼ p is sampled from the mixture and z denotes its class, and ξ t ∼ N (0, b 2 t ) is Gaussian noise corresponding to time t of the backward process. Hence, the marginal p t (x) is the convolution of the target p scaled by a t , and N (0, b 2 t ). Denote by a * p the distribution of aX where X ∼ p. Then the distribution at time t given z is given by p t (•|z = 1) = a t * p (1) ⋆ N (0, b 2 t ) and p t (•|z = -1) = a t * p (-1) ⋆ N (0, b 2 t ), respectively. The probability flow ODE with respect to the component p (1) is given byEQUATIONand analogously for the other component. This ODE has the property that if x(0) is distributed as a sample from a T * p (1) ⋆ N (0, b 2 T ), then x(t) is a sample from a (T -t) * p (1) ⋆ N (0, b 2 T -t ).Guidance. Our goal is to understand the effect of introducing guidance into the probability flow ODE (5) . Given guidance parameter w, the resulting guided ODE is given by x ′ (t) = x(t) + ∇ log p t (x(t)) + (w + 1) log p t (z|x(t)) (6) = x(t) + (w + 1)∇ log p t (x(t)|z) -w∇ log p t (x(t)) , (7) where in the second step we used Bayes' rule. We will sometimes refer informally to the position of x(t) (or time-reparametrizations thereof) as a particle.Note that when w = 0, this is identical to the vanilla probability flow ODE in Eq. ( 5) for z = 1. When w = -1, then this is identical to the probability flow ODE for the unconditional distribution p. Our goal in this work is to understand the behavior of the guided ODE for general w, especially large w. In particular, as noted at the outset, the "guided score" term (w + 1)∇ log p t (x(t)|z) -w∇ log p t (x(t)) in Eq. (7) does not correspond to the score function of the tilted distribution convolved with noise, so it is not a priori clear what the distribution over the final iterate x(T ) actually is.Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?Answer: [Yes] Justification: The claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper. • The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or NA answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers. • The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings. • It is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long as it is clear that these goals are not attained by the paper. 
intuition for our characterization of the dynamics of guidance: 
 Having formalized the probability flow ODE with guidance, we now provide a high-level overview of our proofs by presenting general intuition for the effect of guidance. The behavior of the guided ODE in the setting of mixtures of compactly supported distributions is the richest, so we focus on illustrating the proof of Theorem 1. In that setting, roughly speaking, we will show that there are three distinct regimes for the evolution of the guided ODE, depending on how the posterior probabilites p t (z = -1|x(t)) and p t (z = 1|x(t)) relate to each other.First, when the posterior probability p t (z = -1|x(t)) is much larger than p t (z = 1|x(t)), then the score function of the convolved mixture model is dominated by the score of p (-1) convolved with the appropriate Gaussian; in particular, the guided score term in Eq. ( 7) is almost (w + 1)∇ log p t (x(t)|z) -w∇ log p t (x(t)) ≈ (2w + 1) log p t (x(t)|z),i.e. x(t) gets pushed toward the p (1) component with maximum velocity.The second case is when the posterior probabilities p t (z = 1|x(t)) and p t (z = -1|x(t)) are approximately equal. In this case, the score of the convolved mixture is almost zero since the influences from p (1) and p (-1) cancel each other out. Hence, the guided score term in (7) roughly becomes (w + 1)∇ log p t (x(t)|z) -w∇ log p t (x(t)) ≈ (w + 1)∇ log p t (x(t)|z). We can see that here x(t) will still converge to the right component with high velocity proportional to w + 1 in this regime.Finally the third regime is when p t (z = 1|x(t)) > p t (z = -1|x(t)), i.e. x(t) is "closer" to p (1) . Then the RHS roughly becomes (w + 1)∇ log p t (x(t)|z) -w∇ log p t (x(t)) ≈ ∇ log p t (x(t)|z). In this case x(t) converges to the right component with minimum speed, i.e. proportional to a constant independent of w.Overall, we observe the behavior that when the particle is close to the wrong component, guidance adds more biasing on it to repel it from that component toward the correct one, whereas when the particle is closer to the correct component, it decreases in velocity. This intuitively means that guidance somehow biases the distribution of the correct component to points that are "farther" from the other component, an intuition that we rigorize in Appendices A and B where we prove formal versions of Theorems 1 and 2.Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors?Answer: [Yes] Justification: Our theoretical results only hold for the simple scenario considered in the paper. Extension to more complicated models remains open research directions.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper. • The authors are encouraged to create a separate "Limitations" section in their paper.• The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be. • The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on a few datasets or with a few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated. • The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach.For example, a facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken in low lighting. Or a speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to handle technical jargon. • The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size. • If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness. • While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, a worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an important role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations. 
experiments: 
 Here we empirically verify the guidance dynamics predicted by Theorems 1 and 2. All experiments in this section were conducted on a single A5000 GPU. We use Jax [2] for the experiments in Section 3.1 and PyTorch [27] for all other experiments.We first revisit the distribution used in Figure 1 (mixture of uniforms), and then consider the case of mixture of Gaussians in Appendix C.1. The distribution in Figure 1 is constructed by taking p (z) to be Uniform([-1/2, 1/2] ⊗ [-1/2, 1/2]) shifted by 2z in the x-coordinate. Note that although this is a 2-D distribution, the distributions p (1) and p (-1) can be written as p (z) 1 ⊗ q with q shared, which does not affect the dynamics of Theorem 1. We demonstrated in Figure 1 how sampling with a larger guidance parameter yields a distribution of samples that is more concentrated than the true conditional distribution of the data. We now examine the ODE dynamics that produced these samples and compare them to the dynamics predicted by our theory.We generate samples using guidance by numerically solving the guided probability flow ODE (7) using the Dormand-Prince method [14] as implemented in JAX [2] . For solving, we use 1000 evaluation steps and take T = 10, which we is sufficiently large based on the stipulations of Theorem 1. For obtaining the unconditional and conditional scores necessary for the ODE, it is straightforward to write down exact expressions for this case (which consist of integrals that we can numerically approximate). However, we estimate the scores using a more general approach that can be effectively applied to any mixture distribution for which we can sample both conditionally and unconditionally from.For brevity, let A t follow the distribution of a t X, where a t is defined as before and X ∼ p (the mixture distribution). Similarly, let A t,z follow the conditional distribution a t X | z. Lastly, letting p btξ denote the density of ξ t , we have the following expressions for the scores:EQUATION= -EQUATIONEQUATIONBoth ( 8) and (10) follow from rewriting the convolutions as expectations and then using dominated convergence to pass the gradient into the expectations. Using the above, we can compute the scores by standard Monte-Carlo.We use this ODE solving procedure to generate 500 samples from the conditional distribution p(x | z = +1) with varying levels of guidance. For each generated sample, we project the computed ODE trajectory on to the x-coordinate (as this is the coordinate handled by our theory in this case).Theorem 1 suggests that as we increase the guidance parameter w, the ODE dynamics will push samples farther and farther in the direction of the guided class support before ultimately pulling them back to the support if necessary (i.e. w is large). As we show in Theorem 3, this behavior can be undesirable if the sampling trajectory moves too far away from the desired class support, as it can amplify score estimation errors and lead to issues in the fidelity of the final produced samples.We can thus intuitively think of increasing the guidance parameter as not only trading off diversity and sample quality, but also trading off stability with sample concentration. This observation indicates that there should be some range of guidance values that allow for the sampling concentration effect while not entering the unstable regime; i.e. those guidance values that do not lead to sampling trajectories that move far away from the guided class support.To verify this, we plot the mean of the projected ODE trajectories for increasing guidance parameter values alongside the final produced samples from each trajectory in Figure 2 . Since large choices of the guidance parameter lead to some trajectories diverging due to numerical instability/score approximation errors, we visualize only the samples and trajectories that were "good" in that they produced final samples constrained within the guided class support (and we indicate this proportion on the plots). The results show that the projected trajectories do indeed follow the predicted dynamics, with larger choices of w leading to a pronounced pullback towards the end of the trajectories.Furthermore, as suggested earlier, the qualitatively best choices of w appear to correspond to trajectories that do not (significantly) exhibit this pullback effect. In our case, w = 3 exhibits the sharpest sample concentration while having significantly better sample fidelity when compared to higher guidance values.While the synthetic experiments serve to verify our theory, they obviously do not constitute a practical setting in which guidance is used. The most popular use case for guidance in the literature is sampling from image data, and indeed this is what motivated our investigation of guidance for distributions with compact support in the first place.However, typical image datasets used in the diffusion literature such as ImageNet [11] are known to not be linearly separable, and therefore cannot fall under the exact conditions of Theorem 1. That being said, simpler image datasets are known to be close to linearly separable -in particular, MNIST.We thus consider using the classifier-free guidance formulation (which corresponds to the second equality in (1)) of [19] to conditionally sample from MNIST with guidance. We use the open-source classifier-free guidance implementation of [28] designed for MNIST.Although MNIST is perhaps the simplest generative image modeling testbed, it still presents a significant increase in complexity from the synthetic setting. Firstly, compared to the experiments of Section 3.1 and the setting of our theory, we are no longer considering only two classes. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the class supports are well-separated, or even disjoint. Even more worrying, we do not have access to approximations of the true score functions of the conditional distributions that are guaranteed to be close as in ( 8) and (10) ; we have to instead learn a model-based score.We address the multi-class issue by using the standard one-vs-all reduction. In particular, we fix a single class as the positive class y = +1, and then let the union of all other classes represent the negative class y = -1. We note that after this reduction, the distribution is close to linearly separable, and we are thus at least close in spirit to maintaining the separation from Theorem 1 under an appropriate basis.To obtain a projection direction for the sampling dynamics analogous to what was done in Section 3.1, we generate 100 samples from the positive and negative classes using a guidance of w = 0, to approximate sampling from the conditional distributions. We then let the projection direction be the difference between the two sample means. For sampling, we use DDPM [18] with 400 time steps and a linear noise schedule, and we found that training the guidance model of [28] for 40 epochs was sufficient to generate high quality samples.Figure 3 shows the mean projected sampling trajectories alongside the final produced samples for the same choices of guidance parameters used in Figure 2 and the positive class fixed to be the digit 0. We observe the same phenomenon as before: after the guidance parameter w is taken to be sufficiently large, there is a pullback effect in the projected sampling dynamics. Furthermore, once again as before we note that the qualitatively best choice of w (again w = 3) is the largest choice for which Figure 3 : Final samples and mean projected trajectories produced from sampling using the classifierfree guidance model of [28] . For the positive class, we fix the digit to be 0, and the negative class corresponds to all other digits. Each row of samples from top to bottom corresponds to increasing guidance values.we can preserve monotonicity of the projected sampling dynamics. These results are not sensitive to the choice of positive class; we show similar plots for every other choice of positive class (i.e. all the non-zero digits) in Appendix C.2. Interestingly, for almost any choice of positive class used in the reduction, the qualitatively optimal choice of guidance amongst the values we consider remains roughly the same.Although we previously mentioned that experiments on more complicated datasets such as ImageNet are outside the scope of Theorem 1, we show in this section that it is still possible to make qualitative guidance recommendations in such settings based on the ideas of Theorem 3. The idea is that as we scale the guidance parameter w to be large, we start to obtain samples that are no longer within the original data distribution support due to amplification of score/precision errors.To conduct experiments on ImageNet, we use the classifier-guided ImageNet models available from [13] . This is due to the fact that there are no classifier-free guidance models available from [19] .The classifier-guidance formulation corresponds to the first equality in (1) . To be consistent with the notation in [13] and to also clearly distinguish the classifier-guided setting from the classifier-free setting of Section 3.2, we will use s = 1 + w throughout the experiments in this section.First, we illustrate that the behavior exhibited in Figure 3 no longer holds when running diffusion with guidance on ImageNet, at least using the same experimental setup as before. To parallel the experiments of Section 3.2, we use the 256 × 256 conditional diffusion model released by [13] to generate samples from a fixed ImageNet class (corresponding to y = +1 as before), and then use the same model to generate samples from all other classes (corresponding to y = -1). We generate 50 samples from the positive and negative classes (due to the cost of sampling at this resolution and the overhead of storing the entire sampling trajectories), and then compute the normalized direction between the two sample means as before. 4 For sampling, we use DDIM [32] with 25 steps, once again because storing the entire sampling trajectories using DDPM with a large number of steps is prohibitive.For sampling with guidance, we use the unconditional diffusion model of [13] with the 256 × 256 ImageNet classifier also released by [13] . Note here that [13] combined diffusion guidance with their conditional model for their best results, but this does not fall in to the formulation of (1) and so we use the unconditional model. We use DDIM with 25 steps for the guidance samples as well.Figure 4 shows the final produced samples alongside the mean projected trajectories for an arbitrarily fixed positive class as in the experiments of Section 3.2. We see that even for extreme guidance scales s = 25 the previously observed non-monotonicity phenomenon in the projected trajectories no longer Figure 4 : Final samples and mean projected trajectories produced from sampling using the classifierguided ImageNet diffusion model of [13] . The positive class here is taken to be 292 (tiger). As before, each row of samples from top to bottom corresponds to increasing guidance values.occurs. We suspect this can largely be attributed to the fact that the class supports are no longer close to separated, and as a result the direction corresponding to the difference in sample means is no longer a direction for which we can expect the dynamics of Theorem 1 (in fact, we can expect that there is no such direction along which these dynamics occur since the data is not linearly separable even after reducing to two classes). However, we note that as we increase the guidance strength, the final sample correlation along this mean difference direction continues to increase, more akin to the result of Theorem 2.In tandem with this increasing correlation, we also observe an increase in the mean "support error" of the final samples, which is overlain on to the trajectory plots in Figure 4 . This error is computed by taking the mean absolute deviation of every dimension of the final produced samples from the range of valid RGB values [0, 255]; dimensions that are outside of this range are truncated so as to form valid images. We find that, at least qualitatively, the largest guidance value (s = 5) for which we have no support error seems to perform the best, as taking guidance values larger seems to introduce various visual idiosyncrasies and taking guidance small leads to insufficient concentration on the correct class (as we are guiding an unconditional diffusion model).We verify that these observations hold for a number of different choices of the positive class; these experiments, along with further discussion of limitations of our experimental setup, are available in Appendix C. We emphasize again that this is merely a minimal demonstration of a possibly useful heuristic, and once again point out that this setting is outside the scope of our theory. Still, an interesting direction for future work could be to run more comprehensive experiments regarding this heuristic (and other heuristics in this section) -such experiments were outside the scope of our available compute resources.Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof?Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?Answer: [Yes]Justification: We include code in the supplementary material for recreating the numerical experiments in the paper.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code. • Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted. 
conclusion: 
 In this work we gave the first fine-grained analysis of the dynamics of the probability flow ODE with guidance, focusing on two toy settings involving mixture models in one dimension. Our key finding was that not only does the guided ODE fail to sample from the tilted distribution that originally motivated the formulation of guidance, but in fact the guided ODE implicitly leverages geometric information about the data distribution even if such information is absent in the classifier being used for guidance.Our results open up a number of interesting follow-up directions. For example, our guarantees are restricted to one-dimensional settings, and it would be useful to obtain analogous guarantees for non-trivial high-dimensional settings such as mixtures of bounded densities over disjoint convex bodies. Additionally, we have made no effort to optimize the choice of w in our theoretical guarantees, and it would be interesting to see how small one can take w in theory while still obtain the behavior in our results. 
experimental setting/details: 
 Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?Answer: [Yes]Justification: The setup of the numerical experiments are clearly specified.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them. • The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material. 
experiment statistical significance: 
 Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?Answer: [Yes]Justification: Deviation band is provided for the numerical trajectory.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper. • The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions).• The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.) • The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors). • It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean. • It is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have a 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified. • For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables or figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out of range (e.g. negative error rates). • If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain in the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables in the text. 
experiments compute resources: 
 Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the computer resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?Answer: [Yes]Justification: Computing resource is specified in the beginning of the numerics section.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage. • The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well as estimate the total compute. • The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't make it into the paper). 
code of ethics: 
 Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines? 
broader impacts: 
 Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?Answer: [NA]Justification: Since the paper focuses on theoretical study of the guidance dynamics, it does not have immediate societal impacts.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.• If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact.• Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations. • The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster. • The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology. • If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML). 
safeguards: 
 Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?Answer: [NA]Justification: The paper only considers theoretical understanding of the guidance model, it does not pose such risks.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.• Released models that have a high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters. • Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images. • We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort.12. Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?Answer: [Yes] Justification: The code package used is properly cited.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.• The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.• The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a URL. • The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.• For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.• If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcode.com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset. • For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided. • If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's creators. 
new assets: 
 Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?Answer: [NA] Justification: No new asset is released.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.• Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/model as part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc. • The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset is used. • At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file. 
crowdsourcing and research with human subjects: 
 Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?Answer: [NA]Justification: The paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects. • Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribution of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included in the main paper. • According to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector. 
institutional review board (irb) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects: 
 Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?Answer: [NA]Justification: The paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects. • Depending on the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.• We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution. • For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review. 
 
 Appendix: Consider the case when p (1) and p (-1) are supported on [α 1 , α 2 ] and [-α 2 , -α 1 ], respectively, for parameters 0 < α 1 ≤ α 2 . The simplest case is when we are dealing with two points, i.e., when α 1 = α 2 . However, this case is trivial as adding guidance has no effect: the final distribution with any guidance parameter w remains a point mass on α 2 .In contrast, the behavior is unclear if the length of the intervals is nonzero, which is the focus of our results below.We make the following assumption on p (1) and p (-1) : Assumption 1. We assume the densities p (1) , p (-1) have β-bounded densities with respect to each other for some β ≥ 1.Namely ∀x 1 ∈ (-α 2 , -α 1 ), x 2 ∈ (α 1 , α 2 ): 1 β ≤ p (-1) (x 1 ) p (1) (x 2 ) ≤ β.Under Assumption 1 we show that by running the guided ODE starting from Gaussian initialization, we sample from a distribution concentrated at the edge of p (1) . In particular, we prove the following result: Theorem 4 (Convergence to the edge of the support). Assume ln(w)16 √ w ≤ α1α2 β , ln(w) ln ln(w) ≥ 1024 α2 α1∧1 2. Then running the guided ODE with T ≥ 2 log 2 and parameter w for the mixture model p defined in (4) under Assumption 1, with probability at least 1 -exp(-wα 2 1 512β2 ), the resulting sample lies in the intervalEQUATIONThe formal proof of Theorem 4 which combines all the pieces that we present in this section comes at the end of the section. At a high level, we show that the particle goes through two major phases: first, if we have the condition that the initial point satisfies x(0) ≥ -Θ(-√ w), then it goes towards the support of p (1) and swings past it, ending up at position Θ(w). Then, in the second phase, it comes back to the support of p (1) , but by the time it reaches the rightmost edge of the support, it is already close to the end of the process; in particular, we show that it cannot move too much on the support of p (1) once it arrives there. Hence the particle gets stuck near the edge of the support. We formalize this intuition below.In the setting of this section, the score can be written asEQUATION∇ log p t (x|z = +1) = - α∈(α1,α2) x-atα b 2 t e -(x-atα) 2 /(2b 2 t ) dα α∈(α1,α2) e -(x-atα) 2 /(2b 2 t ) dα .To simplify the notation, for all t ∈ [0, T ], denote the random variable a t x + ξ t by X t (observe that X 0 = x). Then by Tweedie's formula, the score at time t can be obtained from the posterior mean ofEQUATION∇ log(p t (y|z = ±1)) = a t E[X 0 -y|X t = y, z = ±1]. (13) We denote E[X 0 |X t = y] in short by E[X 0 |y] and E[X 0 |X t = y, z = ±1] in short by E[X 0 |y, z = ±1].Then, the probability flow ODE can be written asx ′ (t) = x(t) + w + 1 b 2 t (a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = 1] -x(t)) - w b 2 t (a t E[X 0 |x(t)] -x(t)) .Next, we consider the change of variable s(t) ≜ a t = e t-T and its corresponding inverse function t(s) = ln(s) + T , and x(s) = x(t(s)), where s varies in the interval [s 0 , 1] for s 0 = e -T . Define the following conditional probabilities of the two components of the mixture, conditioned on X t :q (+1) t = P(z = 1|X t = x(t)), q (-1) t = P(z = -1|X t = x(t)). Before proceeding with the proof of Theorem 4, we present a key algebraic manipulation of the probability flow ODE in (7) which enables us to analyze it more easily: Lemma 1 (Alternative view on probability flow ODE). The probability flow ODE can be written asEQUATIONor with respect to x(s) in variable s:EQUATIONProof. Note that combining ( 7) and ( 13), we can writex ′ (t) -x(t) = w + 1 b 2 t (a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = 1] -x(t)) - w b 2 t q (+1) t (a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = 1] -x(t)) + q (-1) t (a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = -1] -x(t)) = w + 1 b 2 t (a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = 1] -x(t)) - w b 2 t (a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = 1] -x(t)) + w b 2 t q (-1) t ((a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = 1] -x(t)) -(a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = -1] -x(t))) = 1 b 2 t (a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = 1] -x(t)) + w b 2 t q (-1) t (a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = 1] -a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = -1]) , which using a 2 t + b 2 t = 1 implies x ′ (t) = 1 b 2 t a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = 1] -a 2 t x(t) + w b 2 t q (-1) t (a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = 1] -a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = -1]) .(16) Now changing variable from t to s(t) ≜ a t , taking the derivative we get x ′ (t) = ds dt x′ (s) = a t x′ (s). Plugging this into the above, we obtain its equivalent form in variable s:x′ (s) = 1 b 2 t (E[X 0 |x(s), z = 1] -a t x(s)) + w b 2 t q (-1) t (E[X 0 |x(s), z = 1] -E[X 0 |x(s), z = -1]) .We begin by sketching our argument in greater detail. First note that the second term in (14) , namelyEQUATIONis a positive dominant term (compared to the first term) unless we have q (-1) t= O(1/w), which happens only when x(t) = Ω(ln(w)). First, we show that (1) starting from a high probability region for x(0), the particle will get to x(t) ≥ Ω(ln(w)) at some time t, using the dominance of the second term (Lemma 3). Then, in the case where x(t 0 ) = Ω(ln(w)) for some time t 0 , (2) we show a lower bound on the time that it takes for x(t) to get back to the proximity of the origin and then an upper bound on how much it can move inside the support (Lemma 5). Finally in Lemma 6 we show that x(t) does converge to the interval, provided the event of Lemma 3 holds. Building upon these Lemmas, we prove the final result in Theorem 4.We now proceed with the formal proof. We start with a Lemma showing that as long as x(t) is less than the threshold Θ log(w) α2 , then x ′ (t) is at least of order Ω( √ w); hence the particle has a strong push toward the positive direction.Lemma 2 (Positive push toward right). If x(t) ≤ log(w) 16α2 ∧ α1 √ w 2β , α 2 2 ≤ log(w)4 , and given that α 1 √ w ≥ log(w), then for times t s.t. a 2 t ≤ 1 2 , we havex ′ (t) ≥ a t α 1 √ w 2βb 2 t .Proof. From the assumption s 2 = a 2 t ≤ 1 2 , note that we get b 2 t = 1 -s 2 ≥ 1 2 and a 2 t = s 2 ≤ b 2 t . Hence, for any two points x 1 ∈ (-a t α 2 , -a t α 1 ) and x 2 ∈ (a t α 1 , a t α 2 ), we havee -(x(t)-x2) 2 /(2b 2 t ) e -(x(t)-x1) 2 /(2b 2 t ) = e -(x(t)-x1+(x1-x2)) 2 /(2b 2 t ) e -(x(t)-x1) 2 /(2b 2 t ) = e (x(t)-x1)(x2-x1)/b 2 t -(x2-x1) 2 /(2b 2 t ) ≤ e (x(t)+atα2)(x2-x1)/b 2 t ≤ e 4α2x(t)+2α 2 2 a 2 t /b 2 t ≤ e 4α2(log(w)/(16α2))+2α 2 2 = √ w.Therefore,atα2 atα1 p (1) (x)e -(x(t)-x) 2 /(2b 2 t ) dx -atα1 -atα2 p (-1) (x)e -(x(t)-x) 2 /(2b 2 t ) dx ≤ β √ w, which gives q (+1) t q (-1) t = P(z = 1|X t = x(t)) P(z = -1|X t = x(t)) ≤ β √ w.Therefore, using β, w ≥ 1,q (-1) t ≥ 1 1 + β √ w ≥ 1 2β √ w .Therefore, for the second term in Equation ( 14) we havew b 2 t q (-1) t (a t E[X 0 |x(s), z = 1] -a t E[X 0 |x(s), z = -1]) ≥ w b 2 t q (-1) t 2a t α 1 ≥ a t α 1 √ w βb 2 t .On the other hand, for the first term we have1 b 2 t a t E[X 0 |x(s), z = 1] -a 2 t x(t) ≥ -a 2 t x(t) b 2 t .Plugging this into Equation ( 14) and using the fact that x(t) ≤ α1√ w 2β and a t ≤ 1, we getx ′ (t) ≥ a t α 1 √ w 2βb 2 t .Next, we show that starting from x(s 0 ) ≥ -Θ( √ w), the particle x(s) reaches at least Θ(ln(ω)) before time 1. This results from the strong acceleration force toward the right in this phase, coming from the dominance of the aforementioned second term in (14) .α2 ≤ √ wα1 β , T ≥ 2 ln 2, under the conditions of Lemma 2, given that x(s (0) ) ≥ -√ wα116β , there exists a time s 0 such thatx(s 0 ) ≥ ln(w) 16α 2 ,where recall s (0) = e -T is the initial time for the ODE (15) .Proof. Note that as long as x(s) < ln(w)/(16α 2 ), Lemma 2 givesx′ (s) = x ′ (s(t)) a t ≥ √ wα 1 2βb 2 t ≥ √ wα 1 2βwhich means starting from x(s (0) ) ≥ -√ wα116β we definitely reach √ wα1 16β by time s = 1 2 if we continue with the same speed. (Note that the condition a2 t ≤ 1 2 of Lemma 2 is satisfied up to time s = 1 2 .) But since ln(w) 16α2 ≤ √ wα14β , then we definitely have to pass the point ln(w) 16α2 .Next, we show that once the particle passes the threshold x(s) ≥ ln(w)/(4α 2 ), then by time 1 it cannot reach any point much to the left of α 2 , the edge (right end-point) of the interval. To show this, we need the following helper lemma showing that near the end of the reverse process, the particle is quite close to its conditional denoising. Lemma 4 (Conditional Gaussian estimate).Given b t ≤ c1α2 √ ln(w) ≤ 1 for constant c 1 ≥ 1 with ln(w) ln ln(w) ≥ 16c 2 1 α2 α1 2 , we have E[X 0 |x(s), z = 1] -x(s) ≤ 2 π b t .Proof. We can observe the quantity E[X 0 |x(s), z = 1] -x(s) as the expectation of a gaussian variable, ξ(t) , which is conditioned on the union of intervals (-α 2 , -α 1 ) ∪ (α 1 , α 2 ), i.e.EQUATIONFor the first integral, we estimate the numerator by half of the integral of absolute value of centered Gaussian with variance b 2 t , denoted by ξ t , and the denominator by Gaussian tail bound:EQUATIONFor the denominator,EQUATIONBut using integration by parts:∞ α 1 +α 2 2 1 √ 2πb t e -x 2 /(2b 2 t ) dx = -b t x √ 2π e -x 2 /(2b 2 t ) ∞ α 1 +α 2 2 + ∞ α 1 +α 2 2 b t x 2 √ 2π e -x 2 /(2b 2 t ) dx ≤ b t α1+α2 2 √ 2π e -( α 1 +α 2 2 ) 2 /(2b 2 t ) + b 2 t α1+α2 2 2 ∞ α 1 +α 2 2 1 √ 2πb t e -x 2 /(2b 2 t ) dx, which implies -α1 -∞ 1 √ 2πb t e -(x-x(s)) 2 /(2b 2 t ) dx ≤ 1 1 -4b 2 t / (α 1 + α 2 ) 2 b t α1+α2 2 √ 2π e -( α 1 +α 2 2 ) 2 /(2b 2 t ) ≤ 1 1 -4b 2 t /α 2 2 2b t α 2 √ 2π e -(α 2 2 /(8b 2 t )) .Therefore, combining with Equation ( 21),(-α2,-α1)∪(α1,α2) 1 √ 2πb t e (x-x(s)) 2 /(2b 2 t ) dx ≥ 1 - 2bt α2 1 -2bt α2 2 1 √ 2π e -(α 2Now using the assumption on b t , (-α2,-α1)∪(α1,α2)EQUATIONwhere the last inequality is due to the fact that ln(w) ≥ 16c 2 1 . Combining this with Equation ( 19), we can bound the first term in Equation ( 18):EQUATIONOn the other hand, for the second term in Equation ( 18), we can upper bound the numerator asEQUATIONBut(-α2,-α1) 1 √ 2πb t e (x-x(s)) 2 /(2b 2 t ) dx ≤ -α1 -∞ 1 √ 2πb t e (x-x(s)) 2 /(2b 2 t ) dx ≤ ∞ 2α1 1 √ 2πb t e -x 2 /(2b 2 t ) dx.Using similar integration by part for the tail and the assumption on b t , we get(-α2,-α1) 1 √ 2πb t e (x-x(s)) 2 /(2b 2 t ) dx ≤ bt 2α1 1 -bt 2α1 2 1 √ 2π e -(2α 2 1 /(b 2 t )) ≤ b t α 1 1 √ 2π w -2α 2 1 /(c 2 1 α 2 2 ) ≤ b t √ 2πα 1 w -2α 2 1 /(c 2 1 α 2 2 ) ≤ b t √ 2πα 1 ln(w) ≤ b t 16 √ 2πα 2 .Plugging this back into (24)-α1 -α2 1 √ 2πb t e (x-x(s)) 2 /(2b 2 t ) (x -x(s))dx ≤ b t 16 √ 2π .Combining this with Equation ( 22), we obtain the following upper bound for the second term in Equation ( 18):-α1 -α2 1 √ 2πbt e (x-x(s)) 2 /(2b 2 t ) (x -x(s))dx (-α2,-α1)∪(α1,α2) 1 √ 2πbt e (x-x(s)) 2 /(2b 2 t ) ≤ b t 8 √ 2π .Finally combining this with our upper bound for the first part in Equation (32) completes the proof.With this helper lemma in hand, we are ready to prove that near the end of the reverse process, the particle does not move much to the left of α 2 .Lemma 5 (Second phase). For some time s 0 ∈ [s (0) , 1], suppose x(s (0) ) ≥ ln(w) 16α2 , α . Then for all s ∈ [s 0 , 1], we havex(s) ≥ α 2 1 -32 ln(w) .Proof. From Equation ( 15), as long as x(s) ≥ 0, we haveEQUATIONIf we denote by s 1 the first time s ≥ s 0 when x(s) = a t(s) α 2 = sα 2 , then s 1 is certainly larger than the first time that x(s) = α 2 as for all t, a t ≤ 1. Let s 2 denote the first time s ≥ s 0 such that x(s) = α 2 . From Equation ( 25),1 -s 2 1 -s 0 ≤ x(s 2 )x(s 0 ) which implies the conditions of Lemma 4 are satisfied, so we getEQUATION1 b 2 t (E[X 0 |x(s), z = 1] -x(s)) ≥ 2 π b t . Therefore, for s ≥ s 1 , x′ (s) ≥ 1 b 2 t (E[X 0 |x(s), z = 1] -a t x(s)) ≥ 1 b 2 t (E[X 0 |x(s), z = 1] -x(s)) = - 2 π 1 b t = - 4 π 2 (1 -s 2 ) ≥ - 4 π 2 (1 -s) .On the other hand, note that from our definition of s 1 :EQUATION2 ln(w) .Therefore, using α 2 2 ≤ ln(w),x(1) ≥ x(s 1 ) -EQUATIONln(w) .Next, we show that when the process gets close to the end, if the particle is on the right side of both of the intervals, then the first term in Equation ( 14) will dominate the second term and the particle is most likely to converge to some point in the interval (α 1 , α 2 ). wheres 1 = 1 - 16(1 -s 0 ) 5 (1 -2(1 -s 0 )) 4 (x(s 0 ) -α 2 ) 4 ∨ s 0 ,we havex(s) ≤ α 2 1 + 4(1 -s 0 ) 1 + α 2 w α 2 1 .Proof. First note that for every x 1 ∈ (-a t α 2 , -a t α 1 ) andx 2 ∈ (a t α 1 , a t α 2 ) when s ≥ 1 2 , e -(x(t)-x2) 2 /(2b 2 t ) e -(x(t)-x1) 2 /(2b 2 t ) = e -(x(t)-x1+(x1-x2)) 2 /(2b 2 t ) e -(x(t)-x1) 2 /(2b 2 t ) = e (x(t)-x1)(x2-x1)/b 2 t -(x2-x1) 2 /(2b 2 t ) .But since x(t) ≥ α1+α2, we have(x(t) -x 1 )(x 2 -x 1 ) b 2 t ≥ (a t α 1 + a t α 2 -2x 1 )(x 2 -x 1 ) 2b 2 t ≥ (x 2 -x 1 ) 2 2b 2 t + (a t α 1 -x 1 )(x 2 -x 1 ) 2b 2 t ≥ 4a 2 t α 2 1 2b 2 t . Therefore e -(x(t)-x2) 2 /(2b 2 t ) e -(x(t)-x1) 2 /(2b 2 t ) ≥ e 4s 2 α 2 1 /(2(1-s 2 )) = e 4s 2 α 2 1 /(2(1-s)(1+s))≥ e α 2 1 /4(1-s) .Therefore q(-1) t ≤ e -α 2 1 /4(1-s) , which implies w b 2 t q (-1) t (a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = 1] -a t E[X 0 |x(t), z = -1]) ≤ we -α 2 1 /4(1-s) 1 -s 2 (2sα 2 ) ≤ α 2 w e -α 2 1 /4(1-s) 1 -s .But integrating this upper bound from s 0 to 1 by changing variable κEQUATION)On the other hand, for the first term in Equation ( 15), as long as x(s) ≥ 1 2s0-1 α 2 , we getα 2 -s 0 x(s) ≤ α 2 -x(s) 2 .Therefore,EQUATION)Now letEQUATIONEQUATIONand define the following ODEs for s ∈ [s 0 , 1]:B ′ (s) = ϕ 1 (s, B(s)), d ′ (s) = ϕ 2 (s, d(s)), with B(s 0 ) = d(s 0 ) = x(s 0 ) -α 2 .Note that using ( 27) and ( 29), we haveϕ 1 (s, x) ≤ ϕ 2 (s, x).EQUATIONFirst comparing Equations ( 15) and (30) , since the second term in the RHS of the ODE in ( 15) is always positive, from ODE comparison theorem we get B(s) ≥ x(s 0 ) + A(s).Therefore, assuming x(s) ≥ 1 2s0-1 α 2 and letting s ′ 1 ≥ s 0 be the first time that B(sEQUATIONBut we can solve the ODE in (29) :ln d(s 1 ) d(s 0 ) = 1 4 ln 1 -s 1 1 -s 0 .Note that inequality (31) is valid more generally up to time s ′ 1 , when B(s)reaches 1 2s0-1 α 2 -α 2 = 2(1-s0)1-2(1-s0) α 2 . Now we solve for the value of s1 when d(s 1 ) reaches 2(1-s0) 1-2(1-s0) α 2 , which upper bounds s ′ 1 due to (31):2(1-s0) 1-2(1-s0) x(s 0 ) -α 2 = 1 -s1 1 -s 0 1/4 . Therefore s ′ 1 ≤ s1 = 1 - 16(1 -s 0 ) 5 (1 -2(1 -s 0 )) 4 (x(s 0 ) -α 2 ) 4 ,and from definition for this choice of s1 we get from Equation ( 31)EQUATION)On the other hand, note that for any time s 2 ≥ s ′ 1 before x(s) reaches α1+α2 2 (if it ever reaches that value), the first term in ( 15) is always non-positive. Hence, we haveEQUATION)Note that the inequality ( 33) is true even when x(s 0 ) ≤ 1 2s0-1 α 2 as the right hand side is positive and the left hand side is negative in (33) in this case. Hence, overall we showed that for any time s 2 ≥ s1 ∨ s 0 , as long as x has not reached α1+α2 2 , we have (33) .Finally combining the upper bounds on the first and second terms in RHS of the ODE in ( 15) that we derived in Equations ( 26) and ( 32):x(s 2 ) ≤ x(s 0 ) + A(s 2 ) + 4α 2 w α 2 1 (1 -s 0 ) ≤ x(s 0 ) + 2(1 -s 0 ) 2s 0 -1 α 2 -(x(s 0 ) -α 2 ) + 4α 2 w α 2 1 (1 -s 0 ) ≤ α 2 + (1 -s 0 ) 2 1 -2(1 -s 0 ) + 4α 2 w α 2 1 ≤ α 2 1 + 4(1 -s 0 ) 1 + α 2 w α 2 1 .where we used s 0 ≥ 3 4 . This completes the proof.Next, combining all the pieces, we prove Theorem 4.Proof of Theorem 4. First, note that we sample the initial point x(s 0 ) according to N (0, 1), hence with probability at least 1 -e -wα 2 1 512β 2 we havex(s 0 ) ≥ - √ wα 1 16β .Then, from Lemma 3, we get that for some time s 0 ≤ 1,x(s 0 ) ≥ ln(w) 16α 2 .Let s 0 be the minimum such time. Now plugging this into Lemma 5 then implies for all s ≥ s 0EQUATION)Now take s0 ≥ s 0 ∨ 3 4 . Then we can use Lemma 6 with s 0 = s0 because α 2 1 -32 √ ln(w)≥ α1+α22 so its condition is satisfied from (34); then, Lemma 6 implies that there exists a time s 1 such that for all s ∈ [s 1 , 1]:EQUATION)Note that s0 can be picked any value in the interval (s 0 ∨ 3 4 , 1). Therefore, picking s0 → 1, Equations ( 34) and (35) show that with probability at least 1 -e -wα 2 1 8β 2 , x(s) converges to the intervalα 2 1 -32 √ ln(w), α 2 .In this section we adapt our analysis to the setting of mixtures of two equal-variance Gaussians. Given mean parameter µ and variance σ 2 0 , consider the random variables z ∼ Uniform({±1})x ∼ N (zµ, σ 2 0 ).The random variable x is distributed according to a mixture of two Gaussians. Let p 0 denote its density.Whereas in the case of mixtures of compactly supported distributions, we found that the guided ODE converges to the edge of the support of one of the components, in the case of mixtures of Gaussians we find that as the guidance parameter increases, the resulting sample moves further and further towards infinity at a rate that scales with Θ( √ w). This is formalized in the following main result of this section. For convenience, we take µ = 1 and σ 0 = 1, but our analysis naturally extends to other choices for these parameters. Theorem 5. For w larger than some absolute constant (see Lemmas 7 and 8) , running the guided ODE with parameter w for the mixture 1 2 N (1, 1) + 1 2 N (-1, 1) results in a sample x(1) for which w) .P(x(1) ≥ 0) ≥ 1 -e -Ω(w 2 ) P(x(1) ≥ √ w + 1/4) ≥ -e -Ω(The first bound implies that an overwhelming fraction of the probability mass in the output distribution is given by positive values. In fact, our proof says more. Based on where the particle is initialized, there is a bifurcation in where the guided ODE sends the particle: points to the left of -2w -1 do not result in positive samples, whereas points to the right of -2w -Θ(ln w) result in positive samples.The second bound in Theorem 5 gives a qualitatively stronger guarantee at the cost of a weaker high-probability bound: not only is the overwhelming majority of the output distribution concentrated on positive values, but most of that mass is concentrated on values at least Ω( √ w).We begin by performing some preliminary calculations to simplify the guided ODE, culminating in the simplified expression in Equation (39) below.Recall that p t (•) denotes the distribution of (a t x + ξ t , z) where x ∼ p is sampled from the mixture and z denotes its class, and ξ t ∼ N (0, b 2 t ) for a t = e -T +t and b t = 1 -a 2 t . We will often omit the subscript t when referencing a t and b t when the context is clear. Hence for ξ ∼ N (0, I),p t (y) ∝ exp -(y -aµ) 2 2(a 2 σ 2 0 + b 2 ) + exp -(y + aµ) 2 2(a 2 σ 2 0 + b 2 ).Let σ t = a 2 σ 2 0 + b 2 . Then a straightforward calculation shows that∇ log p t (y) = 1 σ 2 t -y + aµ tanh aµy σ 2 t .We also havep t (z|y) = exp -(y-zaµ) 2 2(a 2 σ 2 0 +b) exp -(y-aµ) 2 2σ 2 t + exp -(y+aµ) 2 2σ 2 t = exp zaµy σ 2 t exp aµy σ 2 t + exp -aµy σ 2 t ∇ log p t (z|y) = aµ σ 2 t z -tanh aµy σ 2 t . Then ∇ log p t (y) + (w + 1)∇ log p t (z|y) = 1 σ 2 t (w + 1)zaµ -y -waµ tanh aµy σ 2 t .As a sanity check, for w = 0, this gives 1 σ 2 t (zaµ -y), which is the score for N (zaµ, σ 2 t ). The probability flow ODE for the guided model is thenEQUATIONwhere x(0) ∼ N (0, I) and t varies in [0, T ]. For simplicity we assume µ = σ 0 = 1. Then, writing the guidance equation for this mixture in the form (7):x ′ (t) = x(t) -(w + 1)(x(t) -a t ) + w(x(t) -a t tanh(a t x(t))).Now changing variables to s = e -T +t , x(s) = x(ln(s) + T ), we can rewrite the ODE in terms of x(s): (Note that we have sx′ (s) = x ′ (t)) sx ′ (s) = x(s) -(w + 1)(x(s) -s) + w x(s) -s tanh(sx(s)) , = s(w + 1) -sw tanh(sx(s)) ,which boils down to x′ (s) = (w + 1) -w tanh(sx(s)), (37) for s ∈ [s 0 , 1], s 0 = e -T , with initial condition x(s 0 ) = x(0) = x. Now sending T → ∞, the interval [s 0 , 1] converges to [0, 1], and we define the corresponding ODE in variable x(s):EQUATIONEQUATIONwhere x ∼ N (0, 1). Below, we study the behavior of the ODE in (39) for different initial conditions x(0) = x.The proof of Theorem 5 is based on two key results which break down the behavior of the guided ODE dynamics into two cases depending on where the initialization lies.First, Lemma 7 below controls how far x(1) moves to the right when the initialization x(0) = x is in the interval [-2w + Θ(ln w), 0]. This gives rise to the first bound in Theorem 5. Lemma 8 below handles the case when the initialization is in the interval [-Θ( √ w), 0], giving rise to the second bound in Theorem 5. In the first case, we show that the movement of x(t) can be as large as Θ(w) while in the second lemma we show movement of order Θ( √ w). Lemma 7 (Characterizing when the particle moves to the positive side). Suppose w ≥ 100. Then provided that x(0) > -2w + 26 ln(w), we have x(1) ≥ 0.Before proceeding with the proof, we note that up to the Θ(ln w) term, this analysis is nearly tight in the regime of large w. The reason is that if x(0) < -2w -1, then because the velocity in Equation ( 39) is upper bounded by 2w + 1 at all times, the particle will remain negative at all times.Proof. First, note that the right-hand side of Equation ( 39) is lower bounded by 1, so if x(0) ≥ 0, then x(1) ≥ x(0) + w ≥ 0. More generally, this implies that as soon as the particle becomes positive, it continues to move to the right at rate lower bounded by 1.Next, we handle the case of x(0) < 0. Observe that w ≥ 100 implies w ≥ 18 ln(w) + 2. Moreover, for x(s) ≤ 0 we have x′ (s) ≥ w + 1. If x(0) ≥ -w, then we are done as this implies that the particle moves at rate at least w + 1 to the right until it becomes positive, at which point it remains positive by the argument in the previous paragraph.In the rest of the proof, we assume x < -w. Define c = ln(w). Now for the first s ∈ [0, c/(w + 1)] window of time, using the fact that -1 ≤ tanh(sx(s)) ≤ 0, we getx(c/(w + 1)) ≥ x + (w + 1) c w + 1 = x + c x(c/(w + 1)) ≤ x + (2w + 1) c w + 1 ≤ x + 2c ,where the last inequality is due to the definition of x and the fact that w ≥ 18c + 2 ≥ 6c + 1. From this, we see that for time s 0 = c/(w + 1),s 0 x(s 0 ) ≤ -c .Now let s 1 ≥ s 0 be the first time (if any) wheres 1 x(s 1 ) = -c .In the following we upper bound s 1 . Defining ϵ by ϵ/w = 1 + tanh(-c), we see from the definition of ODE (39) that for all s 0 ≤ s ≤ s 1 :x′ (s) ≥ 2w + 1 -ϵ.Therefore, we get for all times s 0 ≤ s ≤ s 1 :EQUATIONThis means from the definition of s 1 :(x -c + (2w + 1 -ϵ)s 1 )s 1 ≤ -c.Therefore, if s * is the larger zero of the following quadratic function (in variable s),(x -c + (2w + 1 -ϵ)s)s + c,then s 1 ≤ s * . Now we estimate s * by completing the square:EQUATIONUsing this bound on s 1 we want to show that x(1) ≥ 0. Indeed, it is enough to show that for time s * which is an upper bound on s 1 , for the remainder of the time (1 -s 1 ), the movement of x(s * ), which is at least (1 -s * )(w + 1), is at least -x(s * ). First note that(1 -s * )(w + 1) ≥ 2w + 1 -ϵ + x -c 2w + 1 -ϵ + c -x + c (w + 1),and using the inequalities 2w + 1 -ϵ ≤ 2w + 2 and -x + c ≤ 2w we getEQUATION)On the other hand, note that from (37), x′ (s) ≤ (2w + 1), we have x(s) ≤ x(s 0 ) + (2w + 1)(s -s 0 ).In particular, from the definition of s 1 ,EQUATIONIn particular, consider the following quadraticEQUATIONand let its roots be s * 0 < s * 1 . First note that Q(0) = c > 0 and Q(s 0 ) = s 0 x(s 0 ) + c ≤ 0, hence Q has a root in the interval [0, s 0 ] and s * 0 ≤ s 0 . On the other hand, s 1 > s 0 , so (44) implies that s 1 should greater or equal to the larger root s * 1 . Now we lower bound s * 1 . Defining G = x(s0)-(, completing the square for (45) givesEQUATION)Note that for the last inequality in (46) to hold, we need to show -G ≥ 2c (-x(s 0 ) + (2w + 1)s 0 ) , or equivalently (-x(s 0 ) + (2w + 1)s 0 ) 2 ≥ 4c(2w + 1).But from x ≤ -w, we get (-x(s 0 ) -(2w + 1)s 0 ) 2 ≥ (w-2c) 2 , which follows from the assumption w ≥ 18c + 2. Now based on (46) and using x(s 0 ) ≤ -w + 2c and s 0 = c/(w + 1) ≤ c, we have for the larger root s * 1 :EQUATIONEQUATION)where the last inequality follows from -x ≤ 2w. Combining Equations ( 43) and (47), it is enough to show the following to prove x(1) > 0:2w + 1 -ϵ -|x| -c 2 + c 2 ≥ 13c + ϵ.Using x ≥ -2w + 26c it suffices to show ϵ ≤ 1 2 . But unwrapping the definition of ϵ, this is equivalent to showingw 2 e 2c + 1 ≤ 1 2 .From the definition c = ln(w), this inequality holds for w ≥ 100.Lemma 8 (Moving the mass to Θ( √ w)). Assume w ≥ 0. Then forx(0) = x ≥ - √ w + 1/2 we have x(1) ≥ √ w + 1/4 .Proof. Below, we will use the fact that w ≥ 0 implies 1 √ w+1 ≤ 1. As in the previous proof, note that for x(s) ≤ 0 we havex′ (s) ≥ w + 1.Hence if s 0 is the first time that x(s) reaches zero, we have s 0 ≤ 1 2 √ w+1 . Note that for x(s) ≥ 0 we have x′ (s) ≤ w +1, so for s ≤ s 0 + ≤ s 0 + 1 2 √ w+1 , x ′ (s) ≥ w + 1 - w 2 > w + 1 2 .As a result, for s 1 = s 0 + 1 2 √w+1 ≤ 1, we see thatx(s 1 ) ≥ x(s 0 ) + (s 1 -s 0 ) w + 1 2 ≥ √ w + 1 4 ,which completes the proof, as x(1) ≥ x(s 1 ) because the particle continues to move to the right as long as it is positive.We can now conclude the proof of the main result of this section:Proof of Theorem 5. The first inequality follows from Lemma 7 as for the standard normal we have P(x ≤ -2w + ln(w)) ≤ e -Θ(w 2 ) . The second inequality follows from Lemma 8, as P(x ≤ -√ w + 1/4) ≤ e -Θ(w) .Here we consider a 2-D version of the mixture distribution of Theorem 2, i.e. p (1) = N (1, 1)⊗N (0, 1) and p (-1) = N (-1, 1) ⊗ N (0, 1). We follow the exact same experimental setup as Section 3.1 and generate 500 samples from the conditional distribution p(x | z = +1) with varying levels of guidance.We once again plot the mean of the probability flow ODE trajectories (projected on to the x-coordinate) for increasing guidance parameter values alongside the final produced samples from each trajectory in Figure 5 . The figure is analogous to Figure 2 , except for larger choices of the guidance parameter w and the fact that the proportion of "good" samples here is the proportion of samples that did not result in NaNs (since we are no longer in the compact support setting).We use larger w values to better illustrate the behavior predicted in Theorem 2. As can be seen from Figure 5 (a), we produce more samples with larger (positive) x-coordinates as we increase w. However, we also get significantly more numerical instability, and as a result the mean trajectory plot in Figure 5 (b) is much less meaningful than it was in Figure 2 .In Figures 6 to 14 we collect the MNIST experiments considering every other possible one-vs-all reduction. As mentioned in Section 3.2, they have near-identical behavior to the experiments of Figure 3 . In Figures 15 to 17, we see approximately the same behavior as in 4. Namely, guidance values for which we have support error lead to distorted samples. Similar to Figure 4 , the choice s = 5 works well in Figure 15 . However, for Figures 16 and 17 , we see that we have non-zero support error even for s = 5. In these latter two cases, we expect the qualitatively best choice of guidance to be somewhere between s = 1 and s = 5.Figure 18 demonstrates some limitations of our experimental setup for classes which have high levels of noise/variance. Indeed, we see that for the "basketball" class the support error is not even monotonically increasing with the guidance parameter, and that sample quality is poor across guidance levels. Furthermore, the projected trajectories become progressively more negative as opposed to positive, indicating that the direction between the means of the positive class samples and the negative class samples is likely useless in this case. Despite these various issues, there appears to still be some positive correlation between support error and sample distortion. NeurIPS Paper ChecklistJustification: The research conducted conforms with the code of ethics.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.• If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require a deviation from the Code of Ethics. • The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is a special consideration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction).In some settings, instead of having access to p(• | z), one has access to some model for the conditional likelihood p(z | •). The distinction between the "classifier-free" setting[19] and the "classifier" setting is immaterial to this paper, and our theory applies to both.We should note that, in contrast to the MNIST experiments, this choice of direction is very noisy in the ImageNet setting. However, we use the same setup as before both for consistency and to show that Theorem 3 can be applied even in this imperfect experimental setting./(8b 2 t )) . 


Decision: This paper studies how guidance influences the generated mixture distributions. From my reading and reviewers' assessments, the theoretical results are new and nontrivial compared to the related earlier results by Wu et al.

There are one negative review and four positive review of the paper. The biggest criticism of the current version is the organization (Reviewers 5E9W, gYu8, 4NtD). The authors proposes a reorganization of the paper in the general rebuttal and it was appreciated by one of the reviewer. I believe such revision is necessary and can be a bit heavy for very short period. However, I am willing to trust the authors for making these changes possible in the final version (I would also encourage the authors to carefully proofread the manuscript at least to clear broken links, typos and grammatical issues). Other weaknesses of the paper are a lack of implications to practitioners and the theory being stated for simplified models. These charges remain valid, yet do not outweigh the contributions of the paper.

Therefore, I am recommending acceptance of the paper.

Reviews: review: paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper explores the mathematical basis for the principle of "guidance" in generative models built out of dynamical transport of measure and provides a mathematical analysis on why certain effects are empirically observed. 

They provide this theoretical analysis for a mixture distribution and then test if these results hold in the case of images for classifier and classifier-free guidance.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: The reviewer finds the paper pretty disorganized, to the point that it is hard to follow the validity of some of the theoretical statements as well as their implication. In particular, I'd like to draw the following comments to the authors in hopes that they can improve these aspects of the paper:

- There are some statements early on that I found confusing, and without theoretical justification. For example, the statement: "In other words, the operation of applying noise to p and the operation of tilting it in the direction of the conditional likelihood do not commute," confuses the reviewer, in the sense that it is not clear why the relation they refer to breaks down. There are proofs in other papers that show that there is a valid transport equation for the classifier guidance setting, e.g. the appendix C in [1]. The question the reviewer thinks the authors should be trying to ask is how to interpret this tilted density (their first unmarked equation). 
- The organization of the theorems in the paper makes them a bit hard to follow. The authors introduce Theorems 1 and 2 early on in the motivation of the paper, but don't provide a preliminaries section until 2 pages later that try to introduce some of the distributions under consideration. Following this, there is a section on numerical experiments to motivate these theorems, but then a return to results on the mixture of uniform distributions relevant for the theorems. This organization needs serious work to be compelling. It's pretty hard to follow which aspects of the theoretical results one should be keeping track of to see if the experiments really support them. The paper then ends with a high level sketch of this last proof.
- Certain equations are introduced with no clarification of notation, for example the probability flow ODE (eq 4), nor is it clear where this equation comes from unless you know the literature. It's also unclear why a different formulation of it is included in Lemma 1.
- The reviewer appreciates the efforts of the authors to include results on image generation, however the experimentation is a bit thin and heuristic, only relying on this pullback effect. For example, on the MNIST experiments, how do you quantify this as outside the support of the density?



[1] Ma et. al. (2024) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.08740
questions: questions: Can you please clarify what you mean by this notion of noising a distribution *p* (which doesn't really make sense to me, I think you mean noising the samples e.g. convolving *p* with a Gaussian) and tilting not commuting? I don't fully understand the point still. There is a valid transport equation for *p_t* and therefore also an associated probability flow, so it's a bit unclear to me still by what you mean. See the above paper.
limitations: limitations: The authors have not addressed many limitations of this work, though the reviewer does sympathize with not having easy access to compute or the image models necessary to really do some good experimentation.
paper_summary: paper_summary: Previous authors show that tilting the score at any given noisey time t corresponds to the score of a tilted-at-that-time-t distribution, and they use this to motivate conditional sampling algorithms, but it is shown here that this is not the score of the noised version of the titlted-at-time-0 distribution (which is the one intended to sample from)

As such, there's no reason to believe priori that the guided samplers are sampling from the intended titled conditionals.
They make rigorous their observation that when you want to sample X|A but the current particle during sampling is currently close to fulfilling event B != A, the particle gets repelled at maximum velocity (under some constraints) away from set B and towards set A, and due to some weird dynamics, particles end up getting stuck on the edges of the support of X|A.

To analyze what's going on the authors consider some simple low dimensional examples as well as MNIST + Imagenet, and then provide theorems that make rigorous the above phenomena. 

The authors connect the theory well to previous works on this topic (Wu et al) and in general this is an insightful read + carefully executed theory wise and experimentally.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: Nothing notable.

minor:
- explain second equality in (1) to the reader (that the coef. gets normalized out + dropped due to grads)
- broken ref right before (2)
questions: questions: Nothing notable for now, but I will add additional comments when some questions come up during the discussion period.
limitations: limitations: Nothing notable.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper discusses the impact of diffusion guidance, especially when noting that the guided score function does not correspond to that of tilted distributions. The authors theoretically justify that a large guidance scale can lead to low-entropy and "extreme" samples. The authors further discuss score estimation in the real world and propose that a sufficient large guidance scale is more likely to lead to a sample outside the distribution domain. The authors finally introduce experiments to discuss the optimal choice of guidance scale and show that a guidance scale that is too large introduces swinging away from the support of the data distribution.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. **The introduction of the paper could be better organized.**
The authors organize the paper in a way that the introduction is a bit unclear. The current introduction consists of the background, the main results, and the related works. It would be better to separate them in individual sections. Also, the authors could provide a summary of contributions in the introduction.
2. **There seems to be uncomplete or missing parts in the paper.**
   - The conclusion section is missing.
   - The limitation and broader impact are not discussed.
   - Line 245: the authors mention the choice of positive labels but the appendix does not provide the details.

**Minors:**
   - Figure 1-4: graphics are not vectorized.
   - Line 35: missing reference.
questions: questions: 1. **How applying noise and tilting the distribution do not commute?**
   In Line 37-39, the authors mention that applying noise and tilting the distribution do not commute. Since this is a crucial point for the paper, could the authors provide more details or intuitions to explain this?

2. **How experiments on ImageNet are related to the Gaussian setting?**
   In Line 260-262, the authors discuss that the dynamics of "farther movement" resemble to those of the Gaussian setting, instead of that of MNIST. Seemingly the authors do not provide details of the experiments of Gaussian setting in the paper. Could the authors provide more details on this?
limitations: limitations: The limitation and broader impact are not discussed.
paper_summary: paper_summary: The paper offers a theoretical investigation of the use of guidance in diffusion models. Through two stylized models, the paper fully characterizes the behavior of using guidance, which violates the commonly adopted intuition.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. The phenomenon revealed in this paper is restricted to highly stylized models, and it is unclear whether it is generally applicable.
2. The main message of this paper is the potential failure of using guidance in diffusion models. However there are no rigorous recommendations for implementing the method (e.g., the recommended choice of w is heuristic).
questions: questions: As mentioned in the "Weaknesses" section, I wonder:
1. How general are the phenomena revealed in the stylized examples? Would it be possible to investigate it at least through simulations?
2. Would it be possible to provide a concrete implementation of the use of guidance with theoretical guarantees (even under the stylized models)?
limitations: limitations: The authors have addressed the limitations.
paper_summary: paper_summary: The paper characterizes the distribution from which diffusion guidance samples. It proves that guided diffusion sampling tends towards the edges of the supports of the class-conditional distributions in scenarios involving mixtures of uniform or Gaussian distributions.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: * The paper's structure needs improvement. The experiments should be settled at the end of the paper, rather than in Section 3. The motivation for theories could be shorter. The current placement interrupts the coherence of the theoretical discussion. 

* It is not clear which main results are explained in Section 4. While it discusses the convergence speed towards $p^{(1)}$ on different cases​, it lacks solid support.

* The role of score estimation error isn't described clearly. Do Theorems 1 and 2 require ground truth scores?

* The presentation of theoretical results is not coherent. For example, there is no definition of $\tilde{x}(1)$ when it first appears in Theorem 1.

* Assumptions 1 and 2 are the same, but Theorem 4 cites Assumption 2, which is in the appendix, causing confusion.

* Typo: Line 35, reference missing.
questions: questions: Please see weaknesses.
limitations: limitations: The consideration of only two classes for the condition and uniform and gaussian distribution is kind of simplistic.

Comments: title: Updated score
Response to rebuttal
comment: Thank you for the author's rebuttal. Given the current state of the manuscript, I believe it requires more significant revisions than initially planned. For this reason, I cannot assign a higher score at this time and will maintain my original score.
Thank you for the response! I remain positive about this submission.
We are glad that the proposed updates and clarifications have made our key message clearer, and we are grateful for your prompt response. We definitely agree that the MNIST experiments are quite heuristic - unfortunately even in simple theoretical settings it is difficult to pin down a precise recommendation for $w$ as the results tend to be asymptotic. Our main hope is that the ideas we present will at least provide some intuition for practitioners for how to think about tuning the guidance parameter without having to run a full evaluation of generated samples. And indeed, for future work we hope to think about ways to make more precise recommendations.

We will be happy to make the proposed changes as soon as it is possible to revise the paper. Unfortunately, this is not possible during the rebuttal/discussion period to our knowledge. In the meantime, if any further questions arise we are happy to answer them. Thanks again for engaging with our work.
One final point - I have preliminarily updated my score from a 3 to a 5. I am happy to push it farther once the changes are made!
Thanks kindly to the authors for the substantive response. It took a day for the general reply to load but I see it now. 

The clarification regarding the mechanism of noising the distribution, as well as its disparity from the tilted distribution is now nice and clear to me. I hope that the authors agree that being explicit like this in the paper will make it much more legible and insightful. I am happy to raise my score given the proposed reworkings -- I really think it will help the paper!

One little caveat -- the MNIST experiments are still pretty heuristic, but I understand the challenge in making them less so. It is something worth a bit more thought, perhaps down the road, because the theoretical analysis in this work is insightful. Thanks.