cs.LGSep 17, 2026

PosteriorBench: From Point Estimates to Posterior Matching in Evaluating Generative Inverse Solvers

Authors: Jiachen YaoZi-Siang HsuXi DengAditi GuptaXin JuSally M BensonGege WenAnima Anandkumar

Abstract

Generative models are increasingly used to solve scientific inverse problems, but existing evaluations still focus primarily on whether a method can produce a single plausible reconstruction. This is insufficient for ill-posed problems, where multiple solutions may be consistent with the same sparse or noisy observations. In these settings, a method can achieve strong pointwise accuracy while still failing to capture the true posterior through mode collapse, overconfident uncertainty, or averaging incompatible solutions. We introduce PosteriorBench, a benchmark for evaluating the distributional accuracy of generative inverse solvers. PosteriorBench evaluates four physics-based inverse problems: Darcy flow inversion, Poisson source recovery, carbon capture and storage, and light transport material inference. For each task, we construct high-fidelity reference posteriors using computationally heavy but established procedures such as rejection sampling and Markov chain Monte Carlo, enabling direct assessment of whether solvers recover the full set of solutions rather than the single best sample. We pair these references with a five-metric posterior evaluation suite: posterior-mean error, posterior-standard-deviation error, maximum mean discrepancy, sliced Wasserstein distance, and radially averaged power-spectrum error. These metrics assess pointwise accuracy, marginal uncertainty, distributional alignment, and global frequency fidelity. The benchmark spans sparse sensing, low-resolution observations, nonlinear forward models, varying noise levels, and multimodal priors, with a unified pipeline for distribution matching and uncertainty quantification. Our experiments reveal substantial distribution-matching gaps across current solvers, while showing that neural operators improve resolution robustness, and guidance weights and generation noise are key to posterior-variance calibration.

Explore similar work

May 21, 2026cs.LG

Pointwise Metrics Mislead: An Evaluation Protocol for Multimodal Inverse Problems

Evaluation in scientific reconstruction is dominated by pointwise metrics - RMSE, MAE, per-event resolution - under the implicit assumption that lower error means better reconstruction. We show that this assumption fails structurally for inverse problems with multimodal posteriors. By the law of total variance, point estimators trained to minimize MSE or MAE produce a marginal spectrum strictly narrower than the truth whenever the posterior has nonzero width. The resulting bias is independent of architecture, training, and dataset size, and it compresses precisely the spectral features - tails, modes, shapes - that downstream scientific measurements rely on. We propose a three-part evaluation protocol where each step targets a failure mode the others miss: per-event distributional accuracy via CRPS, population-level marginal accuracy via a spectrum-fidelity diagnostic, and uncertainty trustworthiness via coverage-based calibration. On a synthetic benchmark with an analytic posterior and on a realistic many-to-one inverse problem from particle physics, model rankings reverse between pointwise and distributional metrics, and calibration further separates architectures indistinguishable under CRPS. The evaluation protocol, not the model, determines the scientific conclusion.
Mads H. Baattrup, Jörn Bach, Laurids Jeppe +4
Jun 23, 2026cs.CV

What Do Flow-Based Inverse Solvers Approximate? A Posterior-Transport View

A growing family of training-free solvers -- FlowDPS, FLOWER, PnP-Flow and their diffusion ancestors (DPS, DAPS) -- repurpose a pretrained flow-matching prior to solve imaging inverse problems by adding a measurement-guidance term to the deterministic probability-flow ODE. Despite strong empirical results, what these per-step corrections actually approximate -- and how far the resulting samples are from the true posterior p(xy)p(x\mid y) -- has not been characterized. We give a posterior-transport account of flow-based inverse problem solving. Our starting point is a simple but consequential fact: for a \emph{deterministic} flow prior, Bayesian conditioning is realized entirely by a \emph{reweighting of the source distribution}, not by a drift correction; pushing the reweighted source through the \emph{unmodified} velocity field yields exact posterior samples. From this we show that trajectory-guidance solvers can be read as the minimum-kinetic-energy \emph{correction} field needed to morph the unconditional source into the posterior, and that FlowDPS / FLOWER / PnP-Flow correspond to distinct zeroth-order / Gaussian / proximal approximations of this single object; we bound the resulting posterior bias in Wasserstein distance. A controlled 22D study with a closed-form posterior confirms the theory decisively: source reweighting matches the true posterior to the Monte-Carlo floor on every metric, whereas trajectory guidance incurs 200200--800×800\times larger error and collapses posterior modes, \emph{regardless of guidance strength}. Guided by the analysis we propose a cheap, principled velocity-correction solver that is competitive across two in-domain priors (AFHQ, CelebA) and two out-of-distribution settings while, unlike point-estimate source-space optimizers, producing diverse posterior samples with uncertainty that correlates with reconstruction error.
Jian Xu, Delu Zeng, John Paisley +1
May 11, 2026eess.IV

A Stability Benchmark of Generative Regularizers for Inverse Problems

Generative (diffusion) priors demonstrate remarkable performance in addressing inverse problems in imaging. Yet, for scientific and medical imaging, it is crucial that reconstruction techniques remain stable and reliable under imperfect settings. Typical definitions of stability encompass the notion of ''convergent regularization'', robustness to out-of-distribution data, and to inaccuracies in the forward operator or noise model. We evaluate these properties numerically. Furthermore, we benchmark generative approaches against modern optimization-based methods inspired by the widely used variational techniques. Our results give insights for which settings and applications generative priors can deliver state-of-the-art reconstructions, and on those in which they fall short or may even be problematic.
Alexander Denker, Johannes Hertrich, Sebastian Neumayer