I'm reading the Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models paper (Ho et al. 2020). And I am puzzled about the training objective. I understood (I think) the trick regarding the reparametrization of the variance in terms of the noise:
$$\mu_\theta(x_t, t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha_t}}\left(x_t - \frac{\beta_t}{\sqrt{1 - \bar{\alpha_t}}}\epsilon_\theta(x_t, t)\right)$$
But what I do not understand fully is the training objective:
$$\nabla_\theta\lVert \epsilon - \epsilon_\theta\left(\sqrt{\bar{\alpha}}x_0 + \sqrt{1- \bar{\alpha}_t}\epsilon, t \right) \rVert$$
It looks to me like $\epsilon$ led from $x_0 \rightarrow x_t$, so it is unclear how learning to predict this noise actually forces the model to learn to undo the forward process from $x_{t-1} \rightarrow x_t$ only. The sampling instead is very clear.
The same question arose while reading another paper that uses a different formulation to build a diffusion generative model over graphs. In the paper "DiGress" (Vignac et al 2023), they define a discrete version of the forward process for application to graphs $G=(X, E), \space X \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times a}, \space E \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n \times b} $. Sampling is done by a categorical distribution defined by matrices: $$[Q_X^t]_{ij} = q(x^t = i | x ^ {t - 1} = i) \\ [Q_E^t]_{ij} = q(e^t = i | e ^ {t - 1} = i) \\ \bar{Q}^t_X = Q^1_X...Q^t_X\\ \bar{Q}^t_E = Q^1_E...Q^t_E$$
and $$q(G^t| G^{t-1})=(X^{t-1}Q^t_X, E^{t-1}Q^t_E) \space\text{and}\space q(G^t| G)=(X\bar{Q}^t_X, E\bar{Q}^t_E)$$
The main difference here, besides the forward distributions to be categorical, is the fact that the model is required to compute the probabilities of the categorical distributions directly: $p_\theta^G=(p^X_\theta, p^E_\theta)$. And the loss is computed by comparing the predicted probabilities of the model against the original graph.
$$ \nabla_\theta\left( \sum_{l\leq i\leq n} \text{cross-entropy}(x_i,p_{i \space \theta}^{X}) + \sum_{l\leq i,j\leq n} \text{cross-entropy}(e_{ij},p_{ij \space \theta}^{E})\right) $$
My doubt is, here as well, how can it be correct that the model predicts directly the distribution of the original graph and still somehow this process should be equivalent to predicting only the backward to the timestep $t-1$, as in all diffusion models.