Organizations: Department of Statistical Science, University College London, UK · The Alan Turing Institute, UK · Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, Finland
Abstract
Simulation-based inference with neural posterior estimation (NPE) often yields overconfident and unreliable posteriors under limited simulation budgets. To address this, we propose DRO-NPE, a distributionally robust approach that replaces the standard NPE objective with a worst-case loss over a Wasserstein ambiguity set. We introduce KL-based metrics for miscoverage and miscalibration, and use these to show that the DRO-NPE objective controls overfitting and reduces posterior overconfidence. Our method is tractable, parallelisable, and readily integrates with standard normalising flows. Across benchmark SBI tasks, DRO-NPE consistently improves coverage and calibration, while narrowing the gap between empirical and population NPE loss, leading to more reliable inference in low-simulation regimes.
Neural Posterior Estimation (NPE) enables rapid parameter inference for complex simulators with intractable likelihoods. NPE trains an inference network to estimate a probability density over parameters given data, typically assumed to be \emph{continuous}. However, many scientific models involve parameter spaces that are \emph{mixed}, that is, they contain both discrete and continuous dimensions. We address this limitation by extending NPE to mixed parameter spaces through an inference network that jointly handles discrete and continuous parameters. The inference network factorizes the joint posterior into discrete and continuous components, combining an autoregressive classifier for the discrete parameters with a generative model for the continuous parameters, trained jointly under a single simulation-based objective. In addition, we propose a diagnostic tool to assess the calibration of the mixed posterior approximation. Across tractable toy examples and real-world scientific simulators, our joint inference approach yields accurate and calibrated posteriors. The inference framework is available in the \texttt{sbi} Python package.
Neural PDE simulators often receive only a single observed field at deployment. In this setting, a field-to-future predictor can collapse distinct latent problem states into the same deterministic interface, losing the ambiguity needed for reliable rollout and downstream decisions. We propose posterior-first neural PDE simulation: first infer a posterior over the minimal task-sufficient problem state, then condition prediction on that posterior. The resulting theory connects the object, the learning target, and the failure mode: Bayes downstream values factor through this posterior, refinement labels make it learnable by proper scoring rules, and deterministic collapse incurs an ambiguity barrier whenever the true posterior is non-Dirac. Synthetic exact-ambiguity experiments show that point-versus-posterior gaps track the predicted barrier. On metadata-hidden PDEBench tasks, posterior recovery reduces pooled rollout nRMSE from 0.175 to 0.132, closing 59.4% of the direct-to-oracle gap. These results suggest that single-observation neural PDE simulation should be posterior-first rather than monolithic field-to-future prediction.
Uncertainty quantification from finite data is central to machine learning, optimization, and automation systems, where decisions must remain reliable under limited samples and test-time distribution shift. Conformal prediction (CP) and distributionally robust optimization (DRO) offer two complementary approaches: CP constructs data-dependent prediction sets with distribution-free finite-sample validity under exchangeability, while DRO optimizes worst-case performance over an ambiguity set around an empirical distribution. We develop a unified probabilistic perspective on CP and DRO by viewing both as ways to turn finite calibration data into a data-dependent quantile estimator that a test score falls below with high probability. From this perspective, CP and DRO correct the empirical quantile along two coordinates of the same family of estimators: CP inflates the quantile level, whereas DRO shifts the quantile value through an ambiguity radius. Both methods provide the same calibration-conditional guarantee for the true distribution, requiring the target coverage to hold with high probability over the calibration sample. Their constructions differ, however: CP uses a closed-form, distribution-free level correction, while DRO uses a value-space correction whose certified radius depends on properties of the unknown distribution and additionally guarantees coverage uniformly over the ambiguity set. This distinction emerges in the tails of the score distribution. Because CP relies on sparse upper-tail order statistics of the calibration samples, its level inflation barely moves the estimator when those samples are dense near the target quantile but overshoots when they are sparse, whereas a well-chosen DRO radius corrects in value space and may avoid this overshoot.