Pathway to $O(\sqrt{d})$ Complexity bound under Wasserstein metric of flow-based models
Xiangjun Meng, Zhongjian Wang

TL;DR
This paper establishes an $O(\sqrt{d})$ error bound for flow-based generative models under the Wasserstein metric, providing analytical tools to estimate sampling complexity in high dimensions.
Contribution
It introduces explicit error bounds and complexity estimates for flow-based models under Wasserstein metric, with assumptions valid for Föllmer process and 1-rectified flow.
Findings
Error can be controlled by Lipschitzness of push-forward maps
Discretization error scales as $O(\sqrt{d})$ in dimension
Sampling complexity grows with the square root of covariance trace
Abstract
We provide attainable analytical tools to estimate the error of flow-based generative models under the Wasserstein metric and to establish the optimal sampling iteration complexity bound with respect to dimension as . We show this error can be explicitly controlled by two parts: the Lipschitzness of the push-forward maps of the backward flow which scales independently of the dimension; and a local discretization error scales in terms of dimension. The former one is related to the existence of Lipschitz changes of variables induced by the (heat) flow. The latter one consists of the regularity of the score function in both spatial and temporal directions. These assumptions are valid in the flow-based generative model associated with the F\"{o}llmer process and -rectified flow under the Gaussian tail assumption. As a consequence, we show that the sampling…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
A tighter bound in terms of $d$ is provided.
1. The entire paper seems rushed and incomplete. Section 3 seems to be a compilation of assumptions, corollaries and theorems. Interpretations and explanations for stated results are barely provided. There is no conclusion & future work section. Overall, I don't think the current presentation helps the audience to connect the assumptions and bounds to the machine learning context. I'd advise the authors to present a simplified set of assumptions and theorems in the main paper to have more space
The paper is well presented upto some point, and the problem itself is well stated and the assumed regularity assumptions on the flow are fair. The paper presents the lower complexity bound than previous works for a Target with more general conditions than the previous works.
The paper is hard to follow for many reasons. - The claimed statements are not directly referenced in the main results. For example, I believe that the main contribution of this paper is 3.15, and it is stated that this is the result that proves $\sqrt{d}$ bound. But there in no direct appearance of $d$ in the statement of itself. The author is most likely refering to $M_0$, which is defined as $max (Tr(C)), M_2)$, and that for the isotropic $C$ in the assumption, $Tr(C) \sim d$ so that $M_
* The new bound get rid of undesirable log terms present in previous works (see Table 1). * The mathematical presentation is very rigorous. * All involved constants are explicit in the Tables given in appendix. * The analysis is general and does not require adapting the flow sampling scheme.
The paper suffer for some presentation issues: * l. 190: The $L_2$ (unusual $\mathbb{L}$ ?) loss still involves the unknown score. * Is it really useful to consider a Föllmer flow with a generic covariance matrix $C$? Is there machine learning applications with non-identity covariances? * The main results (eg Corollary 3.16) are stated with $M_0$ without precise mention to the dimension $d$, contrary to the abstract and the introduction (Table 1). I would suggest to highlight that $M_0$ is the
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsGeometric Analysis and Curvature Flows · Random Matrices and Applications · Stochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
