arXiv:2605. 15407v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We consider amortized Bayesian inference for nonlinear inverse problems using only samples from the joint distribution of parameters and observations, including problems with unknown functions in a Banach space.
By Ricardo Baptista, Hojjat Kaveh, Andrew M. Stuart
Generative models -- diffusion and flow matching -- are increasingly used to solve partial differential equation (PDE) inverse problems, enforcing the governing physics as a \emph{hard constraint} (via projection or guidance) and reporting the resulting samples as a Bayesian posterior with calibrated uncertainty. We show that this widely adopted recipe samples the wrong distribution.
arXiv:2606. 04804v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative models -- diffusion and flow matching -- are increasingly used to solve partial differential equation (PDE) inverse problems, enforcing the governing physics as a \emph{hard constraint} (via projection or guidance) and reporting the resulting samples as a Bayesian posterior with calibrated uncertainty.
By Jian Xu, Delu Zeng, John Paisley, Qibin Zhao
arXiv:2606. 26592v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We propose latent-space diffusion posterior sampling (L-DPS), an approximate Bayesian framework for high-dimensional inverse problems governed by partial differential equations (PDEs).
By Yuanzhe Wang, Alexandre M. Tartakovsky
arXiv:2609.25145v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Variational autoencoders (VAEs) offer an efficient approach to amortized Bayesian inference for inverse problems, but posterior accuracy can depend s...
By Abhishek Srivastava, Arijit Hazra, Rajesh Dubbaku
PosteriorBench is a new benchmark that evaluates how well generative inverse solvers recover full posterior distributions rather than just a single reconstruction. It tests four physics-based inverse problems—Darcy flow inversion, Poisson source recovery, carbon capture and storage, and light transport material inference—using high-fidelity reference posteriors generated by rejection sampling and MCMC. The benchmark employs five metrics (posterior-mean error, posterior-standard-deviation error, maximum mean discrepancy, sliced Wasserstein distance, and radially averaged power-spectrum error) to assess pointwise accuracy, uncertainty, distributional alignment, and global frequency fidelity, revealing significant distribution-matching gaps in current solvers and highlighting the importance of neural operators, guidance weights, and generation noise for posterior-variance calibration.
By Jiachen Yao, Zi-Siang Hsu, Xi Deng, Aditi Gupta, Xin Ju, Sally M Benson, Gege Wen, Anima Anandkumar