arXiv AI

Kolmogorov Regression for Robust Diffusion Policies

arXiv:2606. 18186v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Finite-dimensional (FD) diffusion policies exhibit temporal drift owing to discretization artifacts that degrade long-horizon performance (when deployed on physical systems).

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 17

A Convergence Framework for Deep $V$-Learning: Error Propagation and Sharp Action-Gap Bounds

The paper presents a convergence framework for deep $V$‑learning over a finite horizon $H$, deriving explicit bounds on policy loss by decomposing the Bellman update error into six residuals. It shows how $L^s$ concentrability controls expected $L^1$ loss, quantifies the impact of shared sampling across horizon levels, and provides optimal and near‑optimal sample allocations for statistical error rates. The work also establishes sharp action‑gap bounds under a margin condition, transfers optimal‑gap results to frozen‑iterate gaps, and offers consistency guarantees for generative‑reset approximate‑ERM procedures with exact action scores.

By Yury Kolomeytsev
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 5

Asymptotic-Preserving A Posteriori Analysis of Diffusion and Flow-Matching Samplers

Diffusion and flow-matching samplers integrate a learned probability-flow ODE from a large noise scale down to a small terminal floor $σ_{\min}$, at which the score is stiff and the flow develops a boundary layer. We treat $σ_{\min}$ as a singular-perturbation parameter and determine which fixed-step samplers are asymptotic-preserving (AP), that is, stable and uniformly accurate as $σ_{\min}\to0$, casting the criteria as an a posteriori audit: residual functionals with $σ_{\min}$-uniform coefficients, computable on a pretrained checkpoint without ground-truth scores or exact trajectories.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

Adapt or Forget: Provable Tradeoffs Between Adam and SGD in Nonstationary Optimization

The paper presents a theoretical study of Adam in non‑stationary stochastic optimization, distinguishing two regimes: Euclidean tracking under adaptive strong monotonicity and high‑probability projected stationarity for general smooth objectives. It derives finite‑time bounds that decompose into initialization, objective drift, first‑moment tracking error (β₁), and preconditioner perturbation (β₂), and characterizes burn‑in times for constant and step‑decay schedules. The analysis reveals a noise–drift tradeoff, showing that in noise‑dominated settings Adam’s adaptive mechanisms can improve guarantees, while in drift‑dominated settings they may worsen tracking, potentially making vanilla SGD preferable.

By Sharan Sahu, Abir Sarkar, Cameron J. Hogan, Martin T. Wells