Source-linked AI summary
Beyond Gradient Flow: Identifiability and Recovery from Distribution Snapshots
Nam D. Nguyen, Valeriya Malysheva
TL;DR
Recovering dynamics from distribution snapshots is underdetermined because the Fokker–Planck constraint leaves a density-weighted solenoidal gauge invisible. The paper separates source constraints from snapshot identifiability and studies what autonomy and changing density scores reveal; generic Gaussian shape variation removes polynomial gauge directions for K ≥ m, while finite snapshots can still alias.
Problem
Recovering a drift from marginal snapshots is underdetermined because the Fokker–Planck equation leaves a density-weighted solenoidal field unconstrained.
Source: §1 · p. 1Method
The paper separates instantaneous source constraints from snapshot identifiability and analyzes how one autonomous field across changing density scores contracts the residual gauge.
Source: §1 · p. 2Results
For generic Gaussian shape variation, source constraints at K ≥ m time points eliminate every finite-degree polynomial gauge direction, while finite snapshots can still admit temporal aliasing.
Source: §1 · p. 2, §2.2 · p. 4Takeaways & Limitations
Marginal fit alone cannot validate non-gradient structure; planted-circulation benchmarks can, and autonomy makes the model testable within the chosen state representation.
Source: §6 · p. 9Autonomy depends on the chosen representation, so failure of one field across slices may reflect missing dynamical state rather than genuinely time-varying dynamics.
Source: §2.2 · p. 4
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
Inferring dynamics from snapshots of evolving distributions is fundamentally underdetermined: the Fokker-Planck equation constrains the drift $F$ only through its score-weighted divergence $\nabla\cdot F+F\cdot\nabla\log\rho$, leaving a $\rho$-solenoidal gauge invisible to any single-time constraint. Time-indexed transport formulations cannot resolve this ambiguity: every admissible marginal path admits a curl-free explanation, minimum-action reconstruction selects it, and marginal fit alone cannot distinguish dynamically inequivalent explanations. Requiring one autonomous field to explain several marginals instead makes part of the hidden circulation visible as $\nabla\log\rho$ changes across marginals. Separating instantaneous Fokker-Planck source constraints from the snapshot experiment, we show that the source constraints identify the field modulo the kernel of a stacked score-weighted divergence operator. For generic Gaussian shape variation, source constraints at $K\ge m$ time points in intrinsic dimension $m$ eliminate every polynomial gauge direction, whereas finitely many density snapshots alone admit aliasing; we give the obstruction explicitly. At a Gaussian anchor, for Sobolev smoothness $s$ and $n$ samples per time point, we derive a conditional lower rate $(nK)^{-2s/(2s+m+1)}$ for the tangent snapshot experiment, with a matching upper rate in a degreewise benchmark. Strong-form fitting is non-orthogonal to score error and cannot be repaired by spectral filtering. Instead, we estimate using smooth test functions while retaining the known diffusion term, and derive a finite-sample bound that separates sampling error from fixed-grid quadrature bias. Planted-circulation experiments confirm the predicted gauge contraction and expose a design tension between cross-slice information and covariance-aware whitening.
1 INTRODUCTION
Distribution snapshots constrain a drift only through its effect on probability mass, leaving circulation invisible under a single-time constraint. The paper separates source-level identifiability from snapshot recovery and studies how autonomy and changing marginal scores expose some otherwise hidden directions.
1 INTRODUCTION
- The Fokker–Planck constraint leaves a time-local weighted-solenoidal gauge: distinct drifts can produce the same observed marginal.At stationarity this gauge corresponds to probability current, which can permit persistent circulation without changing the stationary marginal.Source: §1 · p. 1
- Time-indexed methods select a compatible representative, often a gradient field, rather than identifying circulation from marginal fit.Every admissible marginal path has a curl-free explanation, so marginal fit alone cannot distinguish dynamically inequivalent explanations.Source: §1 · p. 2
- Under autonomy, one field must explain every marginal, and changing scores can make directions invisible at one slice visible across slices.The residual gauge is the set of directions invisible across all source constraints.Source: §1 · p. 2
- The paper separates source constraints from finite snapshots, derives a conditional tangent-experiment rate, and proposes weak-moment estimation to avoid score-nuisance amplification.Its contributions also include an explicit snapshot-aliasing obstruction and a design tension between cross-slice information and covariance structure.Source: §1 · p. 2
- The analysis targets an infinite-dimensional field class using observed marginal shapes, while excluding velocity, pairing, and lineage measurements.The paper contrasts this scope with prior identifiability work on linear additive-noise SDEs and generalized rotational symmetries.Source: §1 · p. 2
2 WHAT CAN BE IDENTIFIED FROM EVOLVING MARGINALS
The paper distinguishes instantaneous source constraints from finite-snapshot observations: time-indexed models can explain any admissible marginal path with a curl-free field, while autonomy contracts the shared source-level gauge. Snapshot equivalence remains distinct and can exhibit temporal aliasing.
2 WHAT CAN BE IDENTIFIED FROM EVOLVING MARGINALS
- The Stein operator A_ρF = ∇·F + F·∇logρ records a field’s footprint on a density; its kernel consists of ρ-solenoidal fields invisible to that source constraint.The source-level constraint includes the marginal and its time derivative, unlike the snapshot experiment, which observes independent samples only.Source: §2 · pp. 2–3
2.1 TIME-INDEXED SATURATION AND ARCHITECTURAL BLINDNESS
- For each smooth admissible marginal path, a curl-free velocity and corresponding curl-free Itô drift can generate that path.Minimum-action reconstruction selects the zero-solenoidal representative; for Gaussian marginals, displacement interpolation retains solenoidal relative error 1 despite exact marginal fit.Source: §2.1 · p. 3, Figure 1 · p. 3
- A time-conditioned curl head remains compensable slice by slice, whereas autonomy forces one compensator to satisfy constraints across selected times.This makes zero circulation unfalsifiable from marginal fit in the time-indexed gradient class, even when the underlying system rotates.Source: §2.1 · p. 3
2.2 AUTONOMY, SNAPSHOT EQUIVALENCE, AND THE RESIDUAL GAUGE
- With autonomy, source-equivalent fields differ by a field in every per-time Stein kernel, and score variation contracts this residual gauge.Pointwise, the surviving directions lie orthogonal to score differences; their fibre dimension is m − r(x), where r(x) is the score-rank.Source: §2.2 · p. 4
- Finite snapshots have nonlinear observational equivalence classes distinct from the stacked source-kernel, and an unknown initial law adds a nuisance.For Gaussian rotations, drifts differing by (π/∆)Jx yield identical snapshots at tk = k∆ although their difference is not in the initial source-kernel.Source: §2.2 · p. 4
- Autonomy is a representation-level assumption: failure of one field to explain several slices may indicate missing dynamical state rather than time-varying dynamics.At stationarity all source constraints coincide, and even low-dimensional score fibres can support infinitely many square-integrable gauge fields.Source: §2.2 · p. 4
3 SOURCE IDENTIFIABILITY AND TANGENT STATISTICAL LIMITS
The paper characterizes how Gaussian shape changes contract source-level gauge directions, then studies local statistical recovery in a tangent snapshot experiment. The rate result is conditional, with a matching upper bound established for a degreewise benchmark rather than nonlinear sampled snapshots.
3.1 GAUSSIAN SHAPE CHANGE CONTRACTS THE WEIGHTED GAUGE
- At a Gaussian anchor, a single slice leaves most high-degree polynomial directions in its weighted gauge.For degree q ≥ 2, the gauge dimension is mD_q − D_q and its fraction of the field space approaches (m − 1)/m.Source: §3.1 · p. 5
- For generic Gaussian shapes, K ≥ m time points are necessary and sufficient to eliminate every finite-degree polynomial gauge direction.Shape richness is the criterion; below threshold, a nonzero polynomial gauge can remain, while one generic comparison shape already eliminates the linear gauge.Source: §3.1 · p. 5
3.2 A CONDITIONAL TANGENT BENCHMARK
- The tangent snapshot operator integrates source footprints along the reference path, so its kernel need not be nested with the stacked source-gauge kernel.Between-slice visibility and Duhamel cancellation can both occur, and an unknown initial law adds a propagated nuisance term.Source: §3.2 · p. 5
- If Asm. 11 holds, the degreewise benchmark (5), with mean-zero identity-covariance noise, achieves the matching rate using cutoff Q⋆ ≍ (nK)^(1/(2s+m+1)).At γ = 1, the upper bound incurs a logarithmic factor.Source: §3.2 · p. 6
- The matching upper bound is not proved for the full tangent experiment or transferred to nonlinear sampled snapshots.Those extensions require reverse block comparison, control of omitted-degree leakage, and uniform control of linearization remainder and sampling likelihood.Source: §3.2 · p. 6
4 ESTIMATION FROM SNAPSHOT MOMENTS
Strong-form fitting is sensitive to score error, especially along weakly visible solenoidal directions. The paper instead fits nuisance-free weak moments with known diffusion, then uses whitening and representation choices to stabilize estimation while distinguishing sampling error from fixed-grid bias.
4 ESTIMATION FROM SNAPSHOT MOMENTS
- Strong-form nuisance error has a nonzero score derivative, and first-order coefficient bias is amplified by inverse curvature along weakly visible solenoidal directions.Spectral filtering attenuates signal and nuisance bias together, so it cannot remove this effect.Source: §4 · p. 7
- The Gaussian linear covariance-only audit identifies zero curvature with source-level gauge directions and small positive curvature with weak visibility, but is not a general estimator.Outside Gaussian slices, strong-form curvature depends on higher moments; feasible-GLS information generally involves fourth moments.Source: §4 · p. 7
4.1 NUISANCE-FREE WEAK MOMENTS
- Weak moments use smooth test functions and retain the known diffusion term, estimating the Itô drift without a score, density estimate, or pointwise source.The moment relation follows from Itô’s formula and a trapezoidal rule between adjacent snapshots.Source: §4.1 · p. 7
- For independent slices, weak-moment noise has block-tridiagonal covariance, while the finite-representation guarantee separates an n^(-1/2) sampling term from a non-stochastic quadrature residual.The bound is amplified by the smallest whitened singular value; increasing sample size leaves the quadrature floor, and lineage tracking violates the independence hypothesis.Source: §4.1 · p. 7
- Fixed snapshot gaps yield an O(∆²_max) coefficient-level quadrature floor under stable inversion, which increasing n does not remove.The local residual is O(∆³_k) while the corresponding design row is O(∆_k).Source: §4.1 · p. 7
4.2 REPRESENTATION AND STABILIZATION
- GLS whitening, exact gauge exclusion, and a linear representation solve target the solenoidal risk rather than held-out moment fit.The regularization strengths minimizing moment-prediction risk and linear-functional risk can differ, with the gap governed by the near-gauge spectrum.Source: §4.2 · p. 8
5 EXPERIMENTS
The experiments test structural predictions and weak-moment recovery with planted dynamics, while exposing a design tension: compressed observation times sharply weaken circulation recovery. Ablations also show that nuisance fitting and model-class assumptions affect recovery, and that lineage information is not equivalent to snapshot moments.
5 EXPERIMENTS
- For a planted rotation of norm 0.5, matched marginals had antisymmetric displacement at the 10^-16 level, while the gradient-only estimate had relErr = 1.0000.An isotropic-block rotation also left all marginals unchanged to machine precision.Source: §5 · p. 8
5.1 RECOVERY FROM WEAK MOMENTS
- The benchmark used an autonomous planted-curl Ornstein–Uhlenbeck system with ambient d = 12, intrinsic m = 4, K = 5 snapshots, and diffusion σ^2 equal to relaxation rate ν.The single-draw results at n = 40k and 200k are not treated as measured rates, and the pre-estimation audit refused the n = 4k design.Source: §5.1 · p. 8
- The correctly specified parametric reference achieved 0.308 error against 0.751 for GLS, with paired difference +0.443±0.075 (t=+5.87).The reference was told the exact linear tie between symmetric and antisymmetric coefficients; whitening itself showed no point-estimation gain in this benchmark.Source: §5.1 · pp. 8–9
5.2 A DESIGN TENSION
- Compressing the five snapshot times sixfold raised solenoidal error from 0.78 to 30.9±18.3 with diagonal weights and 25.9±13.5 with GLS, roughly a 40-fold increase.The authors attribute the collapse to suppressed covariance contrasts and note that they have not characterized when whitening efficiency and shape variation can both be favorable.Source: §5.2 · p. 9
5.3 ABLATIONS
- With independently drawn slices, the nonlinear system had curl-channel error 1.65 with diagonal weights and 1.01 with GLS, versus a no-information level of 1.0.The lineage-tracked recovery therefore came from particle identity rather than snapshot moments.Source: §5.3 · p. 9
- Polynomial frame sizes grew to P = 81,900 at d = 25, while random features matched the degree-three frame at m = 6 (t=0.49, six seeds).Dense whitening's O(P^3) Cholesky is the bottleneck; rotating all 12 random features left recovery unchanged.Source: §5.3 · p. 9
6 DISCUSSION
The discussion frames snapshot inference as a smaller estimand than commonly assumed: marginal fit cannot validate circulation, while autonomy makes some non-gradient structure testable within a chosen representation. The proposed estimator is a whitened linear solve, but its implementation is dimension-limited and the evidence is synthetic.
6 DISCUSSION
- Within a time-indexed class, zero circulation cannot be falsified from marginal fit, and minimum-action reconstruction selects the zero-solenoidal representative.Autonomy can make non-gradient structure testable, but it is an assumption about the chosen state representation and may fail invisibly.Source: §6 · p. 9
- The source-level result is that K ≥ m generic shapes eliminate finite-degree polynomial gauge directions, while fewer shapes can identify lower-degree components.The stated rate concerns intrinsic dimension m, and assumptions 9–11 and the faithfulness condition remain unproved.Source: §6 · p. 9
- Polynomial frames grow combinatorially in m and dense whitening costs O(P^3), making the exact-solve estimator most practical with low-dimensional representations or compact feature bases.Validation is synthetic; no biological benchmark or neural-baseline leaderboard is claimed.Source: §6 · p. 10
REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT
The paper records the status and basis of its claims, identifies unproved assumptions, and provides experiment receipts and scripts to support reproduction.
REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT
- Every numbered claim is tabulated by status, distinguishing proved, conditional, numerically supported, and open results.Assumptions that remain unproved are identified at their point of use.Source: REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT · p. 10
- The supplement includes the estimator library, benchmark suite, experiment scripts, and machine-readable JSON receipts mapping reported quantities to their generation.The complete suite runs on a single CPU core.Source: REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT · p. 10
- The weak-form path runs with NumPy and SciPy alone, while strong-form and neural comparison arms also require PyTorch.Gates were fixed before each run, and the supplement records negative results and retracted or superseded claims.Source: REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT · p. 10
AI USE STATEMENT
The material covers declared AI assistance, appendix organization, claim-status tracking, and the paper's positioning and assumptions. It distinguishes proved claims from conditional, numerical, and open ones, while noting that assumptions remain unproved where indicated.
AI USE STATEMENT
- The authors report model assistance across manuscript preparation, conceptual development, proof auditing, methodology, implementation, interpretation, and synthetic-data generation, with authors checking the final work.The disclosed experimental assistance included correcting an omitted diffusion term and a sampling design inconsistent with an independence hypothesis, followed by reruns verified against receipts.Source: AI USE STATEMENT · pp. 10–11
- The models also assisted literature retrieval and bibliography checks; the authors verified cited works, and report no AI use for translation, external-dataset cleaning, or qualitative data analysis.The authors take responsibility for the final content, including AI-assisted text, claims, proofs, code, results, citations, and conclusions.Source: AI USE STATEMENT · p. 11
APPENDIX
- Appendices C–E prove structural results, F–L develop tangent analysis and Gaussian specialization, and M–Q cover the estimator and its finite-basis guarantee.Appendices R–Z contain further experiments, stress tests, scope, negative results, and reproduction instructions.Source: APPENDIX · p. 14
A HYPOTHESIS LEDGER
- The hypothesis ledger labels claims P for proved, C for conditional, N for numerical support only, and O for open.It cautions that rate statements apply to the tangent snapshot experiment or degreewise benchmark, not the sampled-snapshot experiment.Source: A HYPOTHESIS LEDGER · p. 14
B EXTENDED RELATED WORK
- The related-work discussion contrasts marginal-consistent transport methods with the paper's question of what dynamics marginals determine, and positions its work against gradient or linear-Gaussian identifiability results.The paper studies an infinite-dimensional field class conditioned on the observed shape family and considers finite-sample recovery.Source: B EXTENDED RELATED WORK · pp. 14, 16
C PROOFS FOR SECTION 2
- The paper assumes smooth positive densities with sufficient decay for the displayed integrations by parts and defines A_ρF = ρ^-1∇·(ρF).Its discussion of weak-form estimation connects that approach to generalized method of moments and unpaired snapshots.Source: C PROOFS FOR SECTION 2 · p. 16, B EXTENDED RELATED WORK · p. 16
C.1 THE ADJOINT AND THE TWO ORTHOGONAL COMPLEMENTS
At one density, least-norm reconstruction deletes circulation, while stacking slices changes which field directions remain invisible; finitely many snapshots still do not guarantee path equivalence. The Hermite analysis characterizes the single-slice polynomial gauge and its dimension.
C.1 THE ADJOINT AND THE TWO ORTHOGONAL COMPLEMENTS
- The least-L2(ρt)-norm compatible field is a gradient, so its ρt-solenoidal component is zero: minimum-action reconstruction deletes, rather than shrinks, circulation.This is an orthogonal projection onto the gradient complement of the solenoidal direction space.Source: §C.1 · p. 16
- Curl-free transport and flow-matching velocities have solenoidal relative error 1 despite matching Gaussian marginals, while Schrödinger bridges preserve exactly the reference drift’s solenoidal component.A bridge therefore cannot add circulation absent from its reference or remove circulation already there.Source: §C.1 · pp. 16–17
- Annihilating the source constraints at finitely many instants does not ensure path equivalence, because the perturbed density can evolve differently between those instants.The path operator’s kernel is contained in the stacked finite-time kernel, which is contained in each single-time kernel.Source: §C.1 · pp. 17–18
- Finitely sampled centered Gaussian marginals can coincide under distinct rotational drifts even when the paths separate between snapshots.For the stated example, the maximum covariance discrepancy at five sampled times is 2.0 × 10^-14, versus 1.505 halfway to the next snapshot.Source: §C.1 · p. 18
- Changing scores confines a shared gauge pointwise to directions orthogonal to score differences, but differential constraints can leave infinitely many fields unless the density shapes are rich.On polynomials, shape richness removes all remaining directions.Source: §C.1 · p. 18
- A time-conditioned solenoidal head can be compensated slice by slice without changing the path, whereas autonomy requires one shared field to satisfy all constraints.Under shape richness, that simultaneous compensation is impossible on polynomials.Source: §C.1 · p. 18
D WEIGHTED-SOLENOIDAL HERMITE ALGEBRA
- The single-slice polynomial Stein kernel has an antisymmetric-potential representation, and its dimension approaches a fraction (m−1)/m of the degree-wise field space.This is a reference-weighted gauge fraction, not a fraction for the Euclidean divergence-free class.Source: D WEIGHTED-SOLENOIDAL HERMITE ALGEBRA · p. 19
- For Gaussian density N(0, Σ), a linear field Gx is solenoidal exactly when Σ^-1G is antisymmetric; Hermite raising and lowering split cross-slice terms into orthogonal components.The split makes the cross-slice operator banded rather than block diagonal.Source: D WEIGHTED-SOLENOIDAL HERMITE ALGEBRA · pp. 19–20
E GAUGE CONTRACTION UNDER CHANGING SHAPE
This section studies how changing Gaussian shapes contract the polynomial source-constraint gauge, while snapshot propagation can introduce aliasing and the snapshot and source kernels need not coincide. It develops conditional information and risk bounds, including a tangent-experiment minimax lower rate and a linear-estimator upper bound, with the additional +1 in the rate exponent arising from degree-dependent inverse information under the stated bookkeeping assumption.
E GAUGE CONTRACTION UNDER CHANGING SHAPE
- With K ≥ m generic shape-rich slices, polynomial gauges vanish; with K = m − 1 generic shapes, a nonzero residual gauge w survives.For r = m − 2, the explicit field w has degree m − 1 and remains invisible across the slices.Source: E GAUGE CONTRACTION UNDER CHANGING SHAPE · pp. 20–21
E.1 ONE SHAPE BELOW THE THRESHOLD
- With K distinct generic slices, a gauge of degree K survives, while source constraints identify polynomial drifts through degree K − 1; one shape short leaves a high-degree gauge fraction tending to 1/(m − 1).At m = 3, that fraction is one half; whether the dimension bound is attained in general remains open.Source: §E.1 · p. 21
F.2 HOW THE SNAPSHOT KERNEL RELATES TO THE SOURCE KERNEL
- The path kernel lies in both the snapshot and source kernels, but the snapshot and source kernels otherwise have no general inclusion; between-slice source footprints can become snapshot-visible.A direction may also be source-visible yet snapshot-invisible through cancellation in the time integral, a first-order form of aliasing excluded by faithfulness.Source: §F.2 · p. 22
F.3 PROPAGATED ALIASING: THE GUARD BAND DOES NOT TRANSFER
- Good information in every block does not control the joint inverse trace: two coordinates can have individual information 1 and 1 + δ² while tr[(A⊤A)−1] = 1 + 2/δ² diverges as δ → 0.Source: §F.4 · p. 23
G.2 WHAT HAS BEEN MEASURED, AND ON WHICH OPERATOR
- With propagation and gradient profiling, inverse-trace exponents are p = 3.20 at m = 3, 4.08 at m = 4, and 4.76 at m = 5, versus predicted p = m.The tail exponent is measured only on the source operator, not the propagated, profiled operator; the raising-part symbol gives γsym = 1/2, while the full source operator’s lowering part restores measured γ > 1.Source: §G.2 · pp. 23–24
H.1 REDUCTION TO A GAUSSIAN SHIFT, AND COMPARISON
- The tangent snapshot experiment reduces to a Gaussian shift after projecting out unrestricted gradient nuisance, and information ordering makes its cutoff subproblem a randomization of the benchmark.The comparison is one-sided and applies at each cutoff; inverse-trace comparability alone would not suffice.Source: §H.1 · p. 24
H.2 WHERE THE K/q SCALE COMES FROM
- Under the source-strength and propagator-gain heuristic, per-degree information scales as K/q; under Asm. 10, at least half the degree-q coordinates satisfy κ2_q,j ≤ 2μ̄_q ≲ K/q.The mechanism combines source strength ≍ q with squared propagator gain ≍ q−2 per slice; uniform lower bounds and genuine preceding shape change are among the required conditions.Source: §H.2 · pp. 24–25
H.3 UPPER BOUND
- The cutoff estimator attains risk ≍ (nK)−2s/(2s+m+1); its lower-bound construction uses a hyperrectangle of weakly informed coordinates in degrees near Q⋆.At γ = 1, the upper bound incurs an extra logarithmic factor.Source: §H.3 · p. 25, §H.4 · p. 25
H.4 LOWER BOUND
- The lower-bound construction’s band of ≍Q⋆ degrees supplies the factor Q⋆ needed to recover the rate.The lower-bound hyperrectangle is restricted to degrees q≤Q⋆.Source: §H.4 · p. 25, §H.5 · p. 26
H.5 PROOF OF THM. 12
- (CnK)^-2s/(2s+m+1) is a lower bound on tangent-experiment minimax risk, obtained by reducing to a cutoff Gaussian shift and comparing with the restricted problem at sample size Cn.Constants in n do not change the rate.Source: §H.5 · p. 26
- The upper-bound estimator is linear, so only the first two noise moments enter; its L2(ρ⋆) loss equals coordinate loss.The equality follows from eigenbases orthonormal in L2(ρ⋆) and Sobolev weights constant on each degree.Source: §H.5 · p. 26
H.6 WHERE THE +1 COMES FROM
- Each degree-q direction has inverse information ≍q/K, adding one power of q to cumulative variance and changing the exponent from 2s + m to 2s + m + 1.The propagator’s degree-proportional damping costs two powers, while the degree-raising footprint returns one; this bookkeeping relies on Asm. 10.Source: §H.6 · p. 26
H.7 FROM THE BENCHMARK TO THE TANGENT EXPERIMENT, AND TO SAMPLED SNAPSHOTS
The benchmark upper bound does not by itself establish a rate for the tangent or sampled-snapshot experiments. Gaussian shape variation gives algebraic criteria for source-gauge contraction, but the comparison with prior identifiability results has distinct assumptions and observations.
H.7 FROM THE BENCHMARK TO THE TANGENT EXPERIMENT, AND TO SAMPLED SNAPSHOTS
- The benchmark upper bound does not transfer to the tangent experiment without uniform information comparison and control of degree leakage; transfer to sampled snapshots also remains unestablished.The tangent-to-snapshot transfer would additionally require controlling linearization remainders and sampling likelihoods through a growing cutoff; its oracle also knows reference-path shapes not shown by the data.Source: §H.7 · p. 26
H.8 PROOF OF THE COVARIANCE-ONLY AUDIT
- The covariance-only design audit is specific to Gaussian references; equal covariance can yield different information for Gaussian and non-Gaussian densities.The passage concludes that a general-density audit requires more than covariance, and that a weak-form GLS audit also needs fourth moments.Source: §H.8 · p. 27
I.1 THE COMMUTANT CRITERION
- For common-mean Gaussian slices, degree-two gauge directions are antisymmetric matrices commuting with the observed precision family, and one generic shape difference suffices to eliminate them.The K ≥ m shape-richness threshold is instead a sufficient condition uniform across degrees; low-degree blocks can be cleared sooner.Source: §I.1 · p. 27
I.2 COMPARISON WITH GUAN ET AL. (2024)
- The comparison with Guan et al. concerns rotational identifiability under fixed Gaussian shapes, known diffusion, and K discrete observations, not their joint drift–diffusion or continuum-time result.The passages state that discrete observations can admit temporal aliasing and that the two criteria neither recover nor imply one another.Source: §I.2 · pp. 27–28
I.3 FIBREWISE CONDITIONS BECOME ALGEBRAIC
- For a linear field, fibrewise gauge conditions become algebraic constraints on the antisymmetric matrix, making the benchmark gauge computable and enabling a pre-fit design audit.The audit can refuse a design before fitting any field.Source: §I.3 · p. 28
J INTRINSIC DIMENSION AND THE NORMAL SCALE
Recovery difficulty is governed by intrinsic dimension rather than ambient dimension, while isotropic normal-block rotations remain unidentifiable. The method recovers the relevant subspace from covariance structure, subject to a spectral-gap assumption.
J INTRINSIC DIMENSION AND THE NORMAL SCALE
- The rate theorem is governed by intrinsic dimension m, not ambient dimension d, and rotations in the isotropic normal block are exact gauge directions rather than estimable parameters.The normal score magnitude reflects support geometry, not circulation information; the reported tangent-curl error remains flat as d varies at fixed m = 5 and n = 3000.Source: J INTRINSIC DIMENSION AND THE NORMAL… · p. 28, Figure 2 · p. 28
- The curl-visible subspace is recovered from the maximal-multiplicity eigenvalue clusters of the covariance matrices and averaged complementary projectors.After a random orthogonal rotation of 12 ambient coordinates, the reported principal angle is 2.58° and solenoidal errors are 0.6373 and 0.6361.Source: J INTRINSIC DIMENSION AND THE NORMAL… · p. 28
- Subspace recovery assumes a spectral gap between tangent and normal blocks; without it, the cluster is ill-defined and the method has no principled fallback.The paper does not claim to solve intrinsic-dimension selection.Source: J INTRINSIC DIMENSION AND THE NORMAL… · p. 28
K MANIFOLD CONCENTRATION AND RATE SEPARATION
The section distinguishes geometric and temporal information limits from estimator behavior. It analyzes scale separation under manifold concentration, nuisance sensitivity in strong-form fitting, and weak-form implementation, while identifying assumptions and fixed-grid bias that constrain the results.
K MANIFOLD CONCENTRATION AND RATE SEPARATION
- Under bounded curvature and normal width τ⊥→0, the normal footprint scales as τ⊥^-1 while the tangential footprint is Θ(1), so normal-component recovery is faster by τ⊥² and solenoidal recovery follows the intrinsic operator.The paper cautions that this scale separation does not select m or τ⊥, and its Euclidean diffusion is not projected onto an estimated manifold.Source: K MANIFOLD CONCENTRATION AND RATE… · p. 29
L STATIONARY SEPARABLE-OU SPECIALIZATION
- With stationary reference shapes, no gauge contraction occurs, so the separable OU calculation describes temporal information when spatial shapes supply none, not the transient problem.In this setting the entire degree-q gauge survives.Source: L STATIONARY SEPARABLE-OU SPECIALIZATION · p. 29
L.1 COST OF ESTIMATING THE TEMPORAL SPECTRUM
- When the temporal relaxation rate is unknown, amplitude and rate become confounded after the mode reaches its plateau, and profiling inflation grows approximately like e^(2νt1)/(νt1)^2 up to a constant.The inflation remains finite for every νt1; the paper withdraws its earlier phase-transition claim and establishes no rate dichotomy.Source: §L.1 · p. 30, Figure 3 · p. 30
M.1 FIRST-ORDER NUISANCE SENSITIVITY
- Strong-form score nuisance creates first-order bias amplified by λ^-1 along weakly visible solenoidal directions, while spectral filtering attenuates signal and bias together.The paper distinguishes this structural nuisance failure from optimization failure, which depends on the solver.Source: §M.1 · pp. 30–31
M.2 THE COEFFICIENT-SIDE CORRECTION IS NOT AN ORTHOGONALIZATION
- The coefficient-side correction removes sensitivity to the initial coefficient estimate, not nuisance sensitivity, and helps only below a score-error threshold that lies beneath the practical denoising-score-matching floor.The benchmark comparison reports that the targeted variant does not recover the score-free weak form’s performance.Source: §M.2 · p. 31, Figure 5 · p. 32
M.3 REFERENCE ARMS
- With exact score and temporal source, the closed-form linear least-squares reference reaches solenoidal relative error 0.351; fitting the score raises it to 0.862, and fitting both nuisances raises it to 2.19.These oracle-nuisance arms are references, not competitors to the weak form.Source: §M.3 · pp. 31–32
N.1 ASSEMBLY; N.2 FEASIBLE GLS
- The weak-form design uses empirical test-function moments and retains the diffusion contribution, while feasible GLS estimates covariance from a same-sample pilot before one frozen whitening step.The finite-sample coverage of that same-sample pilot is not established by the fixed-weight proposition.Source: §N.1 · p. 32, §N.2 · p. 32
N.3 TRUNCATION, GAUGE EXCLUSION, AND THE QUADRATURE FLOOR
- At fixed snapshot times, trapezoidal bias remains as n increases and induces O(∆²) coefficient bias; the main benchmark’s corresponding floor is 0.033 in solenoidal relative error.Gauge columns are excluded structurally, and Figure 6 reports curl-error and whitened-design-spectrum diagnostics while marking its calibration panel as withdrawn.Source: §N.3 · p. 33, Figure 6 · p. 33
O A SNAPSHOT-ONLY FINITE-BASIS ERROR BOUND
The snapshot-only finite-basis guarantee separates sampling error from fixed-grid quadrature bias, with both amplified by weak design directions. The appendices test measurement noise, target-aware stabilization, lineage tracking, parameterizations, and design conditioning.
O A SNAPSHOT-ONLY FINITE-BASIS ERROR BOUND
- The finite-basis bound requires α > 0 on the retained subspace and separates stochastic sampling error from the fixed residual bias, with both terms amplified by 1/α.Increasing n alone cannot ensure consistency: the amplified bias must also vanish as the grid is refined, and readouts in moment-null directions are unidentified unless C annihilates them.Source: O A SNAPSHOT-ONLY FINITE-BASIS ERROR… · pp. 33–34
P MEASUREMENT NOISE
- Adding 0.2I to design covariances shifts the recovered skew coefficient from 0.600000 to 0.441094, a 26% bias without deconvolution and without sampling noise.Deconvolution repairs the symmetric block but does not restore the curl readout under isotropic contamination.Source: P MEASUREMENT NOISE · p. 35, Figure 7 · p. 35
Q TARGET-AWARE STABILIZATION
- Regularization minimizing moment-prediction risk can differ from that minimizing a field readout; the discrepancy is greatest in weakly visible near-gauge directions.The target-aware perturbation rule selects ζ = 0 on every main-benchmark seed, while fixed ridge ζ = 0.03 performs better.Source: Q TARGET-AWARE STABILIZATION · pp. 35–36
R.1 ONE SNAPSHOT
- With one snapshot, the entire circulation lies in the gauge, so any reported circulation comes from the prior rather than the data.The source constraint identifies only the gradient component at that single time.Source: §R.1 · p. 36
R.2 LINEAGE-TRACKED OBSERVATION
- Lineage-tracked slices violate the independent-slice covariance model: 54.5% of true covariance mass lies in non-adjacent blocks, and recovery differs sharply from independently redrawn slices.Curl-channel errors are 0.4027 and 0.2095 for coupled slices, versus 1.6455 and 1.0142 for independent slices, with diagonal and GLS weights respectively.Source: §R.2 · p. 36
S NUMERICAL VERIFICATION OF THE ANALYTIC IDENTITIES
- Numerical checks find the degree-two gauge collapses by K = 2, while the shape-richness gate becomes full exactly at K = m.These are distinct gates; the checks validate stated algebra, not the rate theorem.Source: S NUMERICAL VERIFICATION OF THE… · p. 37
T HOW THE CURL IS PARAMETERIZED
- Gauge reduction improves conditioning 26-fold without error cost; the 5226-parameter antisymmetric potential alone fails to reach the exact minimizer on every seed.Under 10% score error, restricting support to the audit-identified tangent block is the only variant retaining a meaningful advantage.Source: T HOW THE CURL IS PARAMETERIZED · pp. 37–38, Table 3 · p. 37
U CONDITIONING OF THE LINEAR DESIGN
- The design’s six tangent antisymmetric directions span a 14-fold eigenvalue range, and adding snapshots chiefly improves the weakest direction before gains saturate.From three to five snapshots the smallest Schur eigenvalue roughly doubles; from five to nine it rises 2%.Source: U CONDITIONING OF THE LINEAR DESIGN · p. 38
V ADDITIONAL ROBUSTNESS AND NEGATIVE RESULTS
Robustness checks find that frame choice can improve conditioning, while overspecification and hidden-state projection expose limits of recovery and model adequacy.
V ADDITIONAL ROBUSTNESS AND NEGATIVE RESULTS
- Monomial and Hermite frames have comparable recovery at n = 40k, while Hermite improves reciprocal condition number from 0.01 to 0.03 at n = 100k.Under-specification is graceful, but overspecification is not; the reported failure is conditioning rather than variance.Source: V ADDITIONAL ROBUSTNESS AND NEGATIVE… · p. 38
- At m = 6, fitting degrees one through five to a planted degree-three field gives errors 0.896, 0.935, 0.535, 2.513, then an infeasible solve; overspecification fails through conditioning.At d = 25 the neural field reaches 0.989, essentially the no-information level; in the hard latent regime, latent-space cosine similarity is 0.83 and 0.86 versus 0.51 and 0.48 for the earlier strong-form pipeline.Source: V ADDITIONAL ROBUSTNESS AND NEGATIVE… · p. 38
W.1 MISSPECIFICATION THAT IS DETECTABLE
- A projected variance path rejects the autonomous scalar linear model: its fitted relative diffusion-corrected residual is 0.1204, versus 3.8 × 10^-16 for the full two-dimensional fit.This diagnostic rejects scalar linear drift, not autonomy against every nonlinear scalar drift.Source: §W.1 · p. 39
W.2 MISSPECIFICATION THAT IS NOT
Stationary marginals can conceal a circulating system, and the paper frames autonomy as a state-sufficiency assumption whose failure may remain undetectable from snapshots. The appendices delimit this claim across diffusion, design, and benchmark settings.
W.2 MISSPECIFICATION THAT IS NOT
- At stationary covariance, every snapshot is compatible with zero-rotation drift −x despite true circulation at ω = 1.5; the marginals reveal no discrepancy.The projected lag autocovariance changes sign three times, unlike the scalar Ornstein–Uhlenbeck exponential, while paired full-state measurements separate the models.Source: §W.2 · p. 39
X.1 AUTONOMY IS A PROPERTY OF THE REPRESENTATION
- Autonomy is a state-sufficiency assumption: omitting a changing latent state can make the marginal drift time-dependent, and enlarging the state raises dimension and the statistical threshold.Representation inadequacy can be falsified from snapshots in some cases but cannot be certified from them.Source: §X.1 · p. 40
X.2 DIFFUSION: KNOWN, STATE-DEPENDENT, UNKNOWN √
- Known state-dependent diffusion changes the source and weak-moment correction, but the Gaussian-reference tangent rate is not claimed beyond constant isotropic diffusion.Unknown diffusion is a different problem; the identifiability statements are conditional on D, and misspecification can bias the weak form.Source: §X.2 · p. 40
X.3 DESIGN SIZE WHEN K < m
- The uniform polynomial threshold is K ≥ m; with fewer shapes, degree at most K − 1 remains identifiable, while barely moving shapes weaken temporal excitation even when K ≥ m.Here m is intrinsic representation dimension, not measured-feature count; the linear class needs only K = 2.Source: §X.3 · p. 41
Y.1 PROTOCOL
- Seed counts are small and heavy-tailed, so paired differences below roughly two standard errors are treated as no effect; the Tab. 1 comparisons also use paired and separate seed sets.The four snapshot-only arms share paired draws, while the two strong-form rows come from a separate eight-seed set.Source: §Y.1 · p. 41, §Y.2 · p. 41
Y.3 RETRACTED AND SUPERSEDED CLAIMS
- The shipped weak form omitted σ²∆ψ and fitted a time-dependent probability-flow velocity, raising the main-benchmark population floor to 0.3545 from 0.0332 with the correction retained.The earlier whitening-efficiency claim was retracted after corrected twelve-seed comparisons found no weighting effect.Source: §Y.3 · pp. 41–42
Y.4 NEGATIVE RESULTS RETAINED
- Split-sample selection chooses ζ = 0 on every seed, while fixed ridge ζ = 0.03 performs better; random features show no detectable difference from the degree-three frame at six seeds.A neural field at d = 25 reaches the no-information level, and strong-form targeting does not close the gap to the score-free weak form.Source: §Y.4 · p. 42
Z REPRODUCIBILITY
- The weak-form path uses NumPy and SciPy, and every Tab. 1 number can be regenerated without PyTorch; strong-form arms import PyTorch lazily.The supplement includes the estimator library, benchmark suite, experiment scripts, and machine-readable receipts.Source: Z REPRODUCIBILITY · p. 42