Organizations: School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia · Institute of Advanced Study, Beijing Normal-Hong Kong Baptist University, Zhuhai 519087, China · SKLMS & Institute of Computational Mathematics and Scientific/Engineering Computing, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Department of Mathematics and Center for Computation and Technology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge 70803, USA
Bayesian filtering and smoothing are central to data assimilation in nonlinear dynamical systems. Recent advances in deep generative models provide flexible approximations of the associated non-Gaussian posterior distributions. However, several existing approaches require the score to be re-estimated or a transport map to be constructed at each assimilation step. We propose an amortized framework for filtering and smoothing that reuses trained conditional models across observation sequences and assimilation times. The framework jointly learns a shared recurrent summary network and two conditional normalizing flows from simulated state and observation trajectories. The recurrent network represents each observation history by a fixed-dimensional summary that conditions the filtering approximation and, together with the next state, the backward transition approximation. An information-theoretic analysis shows that, under the Markov assumption, a summary sufficient for filtering is also sufficient for the backward kernel. Combining the terminal filtering approximation with the backward kernels yields an approximate joint smoothing distribution. Numerical experiments on advection-diffusion, Burgers, and Lorenz systems demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed filtering and smoothing approximations and characterize the evolution of their errors beyond the training horizon.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Shared recurrent summary network and conditional flows. The summary network maps the observation history y1:t to a fixed-dimensional summary statistic st . Conditioned on this summary, the forward flow approximates p(ut∣y1:t) and the backward flow approximates p(uk∣uk+1,y1:k) . The terminal forward density and the backward kernels define an approximate joint smoothing distribution.
Nsample
Problem
Nb
Ne
Filtering
One-step
Smoothing
backward
Linear advection: state-dimension study
128
100n
500
500
500
Advection-diffusion: mesh-refinement study
128
100n
500
500
500
Burgers’ equation
128
20000
500
500
500
Single-scale Lorenz
128
10000
500
500
500
Table 1: Training and posterior sampling settings for AFSF.
Filtering
One-step backward
Smoothing
KL
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
KL
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
n=10
0.0191
0.1457
0.0514
0.0822
0.0146
0.0949
0.0222
0.0536
0.1284
0.0401
0.0725
n=20
0.0443
0.1345
0.0860
0.0759
0.0262
0.0956
0.0446
0.0540
0.1207
0.0704
0.0683
n=30
0.0450
0.1288
0.1164
0.0727
0.0358
0.0960
0.0667
0.0542
0.1172
0.0979
0.0663
n=40
0.0524
0.1252
0.1444
0.0706
0.0434
0.0962
0.0883
0.0543
0.1149
0.1237
0.0650
n=50
0.0597
0.1228
0.1710
0.0693
0.0534
0.0965
0.1097
0.0544
0.1134
0.1484
0.0641
Table 2: Filtering, one-step backward, and smoothing results for the linear advection problem at different state dimensions.
Figure 2: Filtering (left) and one-step backward (right) KL divergences at n=50 . The exact Gaussian conditionals are used as the first arguments. The vertical dashed line marks the end of the training interval.
Figure 3: Exact Gaussian reference mean, AFSF posterior mean, and pointwise two-standard-deviation bands for filtering (left) and smoothing (right) at three representative state components with n=50 . The vertical line marks the end of the training interval.
Filtering
One-step backward
Smoothing
KL
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
KL
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
n=16
0.1355
0.0558
0.0123
0.0314
0.0499
0.0236
0.0022
0.0133
0.0548
0.0102
0.0281
n=32
0.1363
0.0360
0.0103
0.0203
0.0653
0.0162
0.0021
0.0091
0.0360
0.0082
0.0182
n=48
0.1135
0.0267
0.0085
0.0150
0.0587
0.0121
0.0017
0.0068
0.0237
0.0067
0.0134
n=64
0.1268
0.0214
0.0073
0.0121
0.0592
0.0095
0.0014
0.0054
0.0190
0.0058
0.0107
Table 3: Filtering, one-step backward, and smoothing results for the advection-diffusion problem under mesh refinement.
Figure 4: Exact Gaussian reference mean, AFSF posterior mean, and pointwise two-standard-deviation bands for filtering (left) and smoothing (right) at three representative state components with n=48 . The vertical line marks the end of the training interval.
Figure 5: Filtering (left) and one-step backward (right) KL divergences for the mesh-refinement experiment at n=48 . The exact Gaussian conditionals are used as the first arguments. The vertical dashed line marks the end of the training interval.
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
AFSF
FBF
AFSF
FBF
AFSF
FBF
r2=0.01
0.0751
0.0752
0.0683
0.0681
0.0411
0.0410
r2=0.04
0.0898
0.0917
0.0961
0.0994
0.0497
0.0506
r2=0.09
0.1003
0.1015
0.1184
0.1203
0.0556
0.0561
r2=0.16
0.1084
0.1113
0.1369
0.1426
0.0601
0.0615
r2=0.25
0.1149
0.1179
0.1523
0.1584
0.0637
0.0650
Table 4: Filtering metrics for Burgers’ equation with ν=0.05 at different observation-noise variances.
One-step backward
Smoothing
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
r2=0.01
0.0525
0.0340
0.0290
0.0710
0.0570
0.0373
r2=0.04
0.0562
0.0387
0.0311
0.0879
0.0795
0.0458
r2=0.09
0.0574
0.0405
0.0318
0.1056
0.0950
0.0502
r2=0.16
0.0581
0.0414
0.0322
0.0981
0.1088
0.0531
r2=0.25
0.0584
0.0418
0.0324
0.1185
0.1236
0.0581
Table 5: One-step backward and smoothing metrics for Burgers’ equation with ν=0.05 at different observation-noise variances.
Figure 6: Filtering (top) and smoothing (bottom) for Burgers’ equation with ν=0.05 and r2=0.25 . The columns show the realized field, posterior mean, absolute error of the posterior mean, and marginal standard deviation.
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
AFSF
FBF
AFSF
FBF
AFSF
FBF
K=10
0.1632
0.2044
0.0647
0.0967
0.0738
0.1015
K=20
0.1945
0.2439
0.1703
0.2530
0.0902
0.1272
K=30
0.2081
0.2604
0.2675
0.3987
0.0976
0.1393
K=40
0.2255
0.2742
0.3844
0.5295
0.1131
0.1489
K=50
0.2605
0.3106
0.5508
0.6918
0.1366
0.1668
Table 6: Filtering metrics for the single-scale Lorenz system at different state dimensions.
Figure 7: Time evolution of filtering RMSE, MMD2 , and CRPS for AFSF and FBF in the single-scale Lorenz system at K=50 . The vertical dashed line marks the end of the training interval.
One-step backward
Smoothing
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
K=10
0.1105
0.0301
0.0527
0.1298
0.0428
0.0598
K=20
0.1240
0.0738
0.0630
0.1525
0.1108
0.0742
K=30
0.1347
0.1253
0.0697
0.1680
0.1896
0.0838
K=40
0.1499
0.1979
0.0810
0.1881
0.2950
0.0991
K=50
0.1695
0.2966
0.0935
0.5423
0.4594
0.1844
Table 7: One-step backward and smoothing metrics for the single-scale Lorenz system.
Figure 8: Realized path, posterior mean, and pointwise two-standard-deviation bands for filtering (left) and smoothing (right) at three representative state components of the single-scale Lorenz system with K=50 and Ntrain=3000 . The vertical line marks the end of the training interval.
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
AFSF
FBF
AFSF
FBF
AFSF
FBF
F=5
0.4634
0.5356
0.5464
0.6065
0.2169
0.2450
F=8
0.4565
0.7756
0.5157
0.7799
0.2105
0.3472
F=16
0.4872
2.4911
0.5030
1.0136
0.2258
1.0967
Table 8: Filtering metrics for the two-scale Lorenz system at different forcing values.
One-step backward
Smoothing
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
F=5
0.0859
0.0290
0.0453
0.4232
0.4600
0.1909
F=8
0.0884
0.0308
0.0471
0.4121
0.4286
0.1839
F=16
0.1024
0.0407
0.0564
0.5141
0.4454
0.2249
Table 9: One-step backward and smoothing metrics for the two-scale Lorenz system.
Figure 9: Realized slow-state path, posterior mean, and pointwise two-standard-deviation bands for filtering (left) and smoothing based on the one-step backward approximation (right) for three observed slow variables at F=5 . The vertical lines mark the end of the training interval.
Filtering
One-step backward
Smoothing
Summary
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
RMSE
CRPS
Linear advection, n=50
Shared
0.1228
0.0693
0.0965
0.0544
0.1134
0.0641
Separate
0.1232
0.0696
0.0967
0.0547
0.1139
0.0644
Single-scale Lorenz, K=50
Shared
0.1945
0.0902
0.1240
0.0630
0.1525
0.0742
Table 10: Filtering, one-step backward, and smoothing scores with shared and separate observation summaries at T=500 . The two-scale smoothing scores refer to the first-order closure.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
RMSE
MMD2
CRPS
AFSF
FBF
AFSF
FBF
AFSF
FBF
r2=0.01
0.1140
0.1152
0.1501
0.1521
0.0588
0.0594
r2=0.04
0.1270
0.1301
0.1830
0.1897
0.0686
0.0699
r2=0.09
0.1380
0.1403
0.2120
0.2169
0.0754
0.0766
r2=0.16
0.1467
0.1507
0.2360
0.2454
0.0807
0.0827
r2=0.25
0.1546
0.1640
0.2581
0.2833
0.0852
0.0900
Appendix
Table C.1: Filtering metrics for Burgers’ equation with ν=0.01 .
Figure C.1: Realized states, posterior means, and pointwise two-standard-deviation bands for Burgers’ equation with r2=0.25 . The first two columns show filtering and smoothing, respectively, at three spatial locations for ν=0.05 . The last two columns show filtering for ν=0.01 , with temporal evolution at three spatial locations and spatial profiles at three times, respectively.
We propose closed-form conditional diffusion models for data assimilation. Diffusion models use data to learn the score function (defined as the gradient of the log-probability density of a data distribution), allowing them to generate new samples from the data distribution by reversing a noise injection process. While it is common to train neural networks to approximate the score function, we leverage the analytical tractability of the score function to assimilate the states of a system with measurements. To enable the efficient evaluation of the score function, we use kernel density estimation to model the joint distribution of the states and their corresponding measurements. The proposed approach also inherits the capability of conditional diffusion models of operating in black-box settings, i.e., the proposed data assimilation approach can accommodate systems and measurement processes without their explicit knowledge. The ability to accommodate black-box systems combined with the superior capabilities of diffusion models in approximating complex, non-Gaussian probability distributions means that the proposed approach offers advantages over many widely used filtering methods. We evaluate the proposed method on nonlinear data assimilation problems based on the Lorenz-63 and Lorenz-96 systems of moderate dimensionality and nonlinear measurement models. Results show the proposed approach outperforms the widely used ensemble Kalman and particle filters when small to moderate ensemble sizes are used.
Brianna Binder, Agnimitra Dasgupta, Assad Oberai
Department of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, 3650 McClintock Ave, Los Angeles, 90089, California, USA. · Optimization & Uncertainty Quantification, Sandia National Laboratories, 1450 Innovation Pkwy SE, Albuquerque, 87123, New Mexico, USA.
Data assimilation models state dynamics conditioned on sequential observations, and has wide-ranging scientific applications. In the filtering setting, the goal is to model the posterior over the current state given all observations so far. Classical solutions typically make simplifying distributional or functional assumptions, e.g., linear-Gaussian systems, which can be inaccurate in many scenarios. In principle, particle filters (PFs) remove these assumptions, yet often collapse in high dimensions. Recent generative approaches learn conditional state transitions, but without principled Bayesian updates they do not recover the correct filtering posterior and can accumulate error over long horizons. In this work, we introduce Flow Proposal Particle Filters (FPPF), which learn a conditional generative model based proposal approximating the variance-minimizing optimal proposal for particle propagation. Conditioning on observations steers particles toward high-likelihood regions before weighting, reducing weight variance and delaying degeneracy. Since our proposal admits tractable likelihood evaluation, FPPF computes accurate importance weights and retains a Bayesian update step. We further extend FPPF to high-dimensional problems through localization strategies, adressing another standard PF failure mode. Extensive experiments on a variety of dynamical systems show that FPPF outperforms statistical baselines and other generative methods in non-linear, non-Gaussian, and high-dimensional regimes.
Flow- and diffusion-based generative models have recently emerged as flexible and highly efficient forecasting models for dynamical systems. When combined with inference-time guidance, they offer a promising route to high-dimensional non-Gaussian data assimilation (DA), the problem of combining forecasts with observations to estimate latent system states. Existing filters, however, condition on a fixed history and assimilate only the most recent observation, leaving them unable to revise past states when new observations arrive. Estimates then stay tethered to a history that later observations may contradict, and errors accumulate over the assimilation run. To this end, we introduce DAWIS, a unified DA method covering filtering, fixed-lag smoothing, and block smoothing within a single framework. DAWIS replaces the single flow time of a state-level prior with a multitask stochastic interpolant over a window of consecutive states, assigning a separate flow time to each. An assimilation cycle inverts the window to a vector of per-state turning points and regenerates it under observation guidance, with the turning points controlling how strongly each state is held fixed, revised, or generated from scratch. The same construction can also absorb the forecast into the assimilation cycle, removing the need for a separate forecasting model. Experiments on challenging nonlinear systems show that DAWIS improves on both filtering and smoothing baselines under sparse, noisy, and nonlinear observations. The code for DAWIS is available at https://github.com/Erik-Wikingsson/DAWIS
Erik Wikingsson, Martin Andrae, Tomas Landelius +1
Linköping University, Sweden · Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute