Question for DDIM sampling configuration
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100
- Issue type
- Bug
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Activity status
- Active
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- machine-learning
Research direction
Compare configs/model/base.yaml and configs/rawdata_diffusion_sampling.yaml, then trace resolve_sampling_runner into src/models/diffusion/diffusion_sampling.py. Reproduce the configured timestep sequence and inspect how alphas_cumprod_prev is used. Done means the intended start-time semantics are confirmed or a respaced schedule is specified, implemented, and covered by an appropriate test.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Hi, thank you for releasing the PerturbDiff implementation. I noticed a possible mismatch between the DDIM sampling configuration and the training diffusion schedule.
The model is configured with a 1000-step diffusion process:
[configs/model/base.yaml](https://github.com/DeepGraphLearning/PerturbDiff/blob/main/configs/model/base.yaml#L34-L38):steps: 1000
However, the default sampling configuration uses:
[configs/rawdata_diffusion_sampling.yaml](https://github.com/DeepGraphLearning/PerturbDiff/blob/main/configs/rawdata_diffusion_sampling.yaml#L38-L42):start_time: 100
In [resolve_sampling_runner](https://github.com/DeepGraphLearning/PerturbDiff/blob/main/src/apps/sampling/sampling_generation_helpers.py#L23-L34), this value is passed directly to ddim_sample_loop as start_time. The DDIM loop then:
- Initializes the state from standard Gaussian noise:
img = noise if noise is not None else th.randn(*shape, device=device)
- Constructs consecutive timestep indices:
indices = list(range(start_time))[::-1]
Therefore, with the default configuration, sampling starts from pure Gaussian noise at timestep 99 and performs 100 consecutive updates:
99 -> 98 -> ... -> 1 -> 0
This behavior is implemented in [ddim_sample_loop_progressive](https://github.com/DeepGraphLearning/PerturbDiff/blob/main/src/models/diffusion/diffusion_sampling.py#L559-L590). Each DDIM update also uses alphas_cumprod_prev[t], so it specifically transitions from timestep t to the adjacent timestep t-1, rather than between respaced timesteps:
My concern is that, under the default 1000-step linear schedule, timestep 99 is not close to the terminal Gaussian distribution. The configured beta schedule gives approximately:
alpha_bar[99] = 0.897
sqrt(alpha_bar[99]) = 0.947
sqrt(1 - alpha_bar[99]) = 0.321
Therefore, the forward-process state at timestep 99 is approximately:
x_99 = 0.947 * x_0 + 0.321 * noise
In other words, the training distribution at timestep 99 still contains a strong contribution from the clean sample. The sampler instead initializes:
x_99 ~ Normal(0, I)
If the intended goal is accelerated DDIM sampling with 100 model evaluations, I would expect the sampler to select approximately 100 respaced timesteps spanning the full training horizon from 999 to 0, and to calculate each update using the previous selected timestep. The current implementation instead appears to treat start_time as both the desired number of sampling steps and the actual starting diffusion timestep.
Could you please explain the rationale for initializing pure Gaussian noise at timestep 99? Is this behavior intentional, or should the 100-step DDIM sampler use a respaced timestep sequence covering the full 1000-step training schedule?
Thank you for your time and clarification.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 63
- Forks
- 10
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from DeepGraphLearning/PerturbDiff
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 38/100
DeepGraphLearning/PerturbDiff#7 · 1 comment ·
-
Question: Simulating gene knockout on novel datasets (zero-shot inference) & Implementation feedback Open
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 30/100
DeepGraphLearning/PerturbDiff#5 · 1 comment · 1 reaction ·
-
RuntimeError: mat1 and mat2 shapes cannot be multiplied during sampling with finetuned_replogle.ckpt Open
Difficulty 3/5 1-2 days Newbie friendliness 68/100
DeepGraphLearning/PerturbDiff#4 · 3 comments ·
-
Inference Open
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 45/100
DeepGraphLearning/PerturbDiff#1 · 4 comments ·
All issues in DeepGraphLearning/PerturbDiff
Similar issues
-
bug
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 90/100
learningequality/ricecooker#747 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
BSData/horus-heresy-3rd-edition#3171 ·
-
enhancement
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
run-llama/llama_index#23199 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 84/100
KhronosGroup/glTF-Blender-IO#2769 ·