Guided diffusion samplers are increasingly used to reconstruct physical fields from sparse observations, but standard diagnostics do not say how much of the reconstruction was actually determined by the data. We introduce effective data resolution for black-box generative posteriors: a comparison between the resolution warranted by the inverse problem, dofref, and the resolution realised by the sampler, dofsamp. A perturbation estimator measures dofsamp and the spatial map R(x,x) from sampler queries alone. We validate the estimator against exact references and use it to study guided diffusion. The resulting measurements show that guidance weight can strongly alter apparent information transfer, that mean, spread and resolution are not jointly corrected by one weight even with an exact prior and score, and that resolution fidelity does not follow reliably from the apparent principledness of a guidance rule.
Figures & tables
guidance
mean err
std err
var ratio
CRPS
cov@90%
ρres
exact score (control)
0.040
0.046
0.97
0.309
0.812
0.985 ± .002
Π GDM
0.041
0.047
0.96
0.307
0.812
1.022 ± .002
projection
0.051
0.049
0.94
0.308
0.812
1.019 ± .000
DPS ζ=0.3
0.155
0.521
2.22
0.314
0.938
0.796 ± .038
DPS ζ=1
0.074
2.712
13.8
0.356
1.000
1.219 ± .046
DPS ζ=3
0.350
9.453
97.7
0.528
1.000
1.053 ± .129
Table 1: Guidance weight trades posterior accuracy, spread, and effective resolution in the controlled 1D backward-heat problem. “mean err” and “std err” are relative L2 errors in the posterior mean and pointwise standard deviation; “var ratio” is relative to the closed-form posterior, CRPS is the continuous ranked probability score, and “cov@90%” is empirical coverage of the nominal 90% interval. The fidelity ratio ρres=dofsamp/dofref is measured at ϵ=σy over 4 ensemble realisations; ± denotes the across-realisation standard error.
Figure 1: Effective data resolution in the controlled 1D setting, at ϵ=σy . (a) The spatial map R(x,x) , averaged over 16 ensemble realisations with ±1 sd bands, showing where apparent data influence lands. The exact posterior spreads it almost uniformly ( 0.107 to 0.138 ) and the exact-score control recovers that to 0.002 with zero spread across realisations, which validates the apparatus. DPS at ζ=0.3 under-resolves roughly uniformly (averaged trace 6.64 against 7.85 ), while DPS at ζ=3 concentrates influence in a band near x=24 and starves the rest of the field ( 0.019 to 0.464 ); the latter’s map is not even stable across realisations, its per-realisation trace ranging from −24.0 to 68.2 . (b) The scalar dofsamp against guidance weight ( 4 realisations, error bars are across-realisation standard errors), with dofref as the horizontal line. The curve rises, crosses the reference, and falls back, so dofsamp=dofref has more than one root and matching resolution does not identify a guidance weight.
guidance
rel- L2
std/ref
SW → ref
CRPS
cov@90%
ρres
pCN (reference)
0.689
1.000
0.000
0.211
0.774
1.000
Π GDM
diverged (implementation; see text)
projection
0.808
1.219
0.255
0.249
0.785
1.501
DPS ζ=0.3
0.911
1.644
0.341
0.283
0.851
0.152
DPS ζ=1
0.796
1.373
0.270
0.244
0.845
1.026
DPS ζ=3
0.799
1.290
0.252
0.245
0.812
1.372
Table 2: Resolution fidelity under a nonlinear map with a trained score, against an exact pCN reference. “rel- L2 ” is the relative L2 error of the posterior mean, “std/ref” is ensemble spread relative to the pCN reference, “SW → ref” is the sliced-Wasserstein distance to that reference, CRPS is the continuous ranked probability score, and “cov@90%” is empirical coverage of the nominal 90% posterior interval. The span of ρres is comparable to the controlled setting, but projection over-resolves by 50% while DPS at ζ=1 is the closest listed method. Π GDM diverged in our implementation, so we exclude it rather than claim a result about the method.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
ϵ/σy
10−6
10−4
10−2
0.1
1
10
dofsamp
−5.25×106
4.27×104
462.2
10.94
10.91
8.35
Appendix
Table 4
P (probes)
solves
bias
sd of mean
per-run sd
8
17
−0.094
0.142
0.897
32
65
−0.011
0.070
0.442
128
257
−0.009
0.028
0.179
Appendix
Table 3: Certification of the black-box estimator. Backward heat, N=128 , n=12 , exact posterior, dofref=5.971 ; 40 independent probe sets per row. From P=8 to P=128 the per-run standard deviation falls by a factor 5.0 against the 4.0 predicted by 1/P .
ζ
dofsamp
stderr
ρres
0.1
1.755
0.103
0.224
0.2
4.028
0.370
0.513
0.3
6.247
0.300
0.796
0.5
7.231
0.575
0.921
0.7
8.405
0.628
1.071
1
9.565
0.363
1.219
Appendix
Table 6
guidance
mean err
var ratio
CRPS
cov@90%
ρres
exact score
0.102
0.96
0.271
0.812
0.991 ± .001
Π GDM
0.246
1.17
0.283
0.828
0.899 ± .004
projection
0.603
2.11
0.484
0.797
1.014 ± .000
DPS ζ=0.3
0.697
21.4
0.521
0.922
1.023 ± .064
DPS ζ=1
0.409
17.0
0.402
1.000
1.079 ± .091
DPS ζ=3
0.126
33.4
0.393
1.000
0.839 ± .066
Appendix
Table 4: Non-PDE breadth check: random compressed sensing with an exact prior, exact score and exact posterior reference. Resolution is estimated with ϵ=σy , P=24 probes, ensembles of 512 , and 4 independent realisations. The exact-score control again recovers dofref , while distributional spread and resolution fidelity separate: projection has nearly correct ρres but about 2.1× posterior variance, and DPS can have near-reference ρres with much larger spread.
guidance
dofsamp
ρres
sd (ρres)
median probe se
exact score
7.77±0.03
0.990
0.009
0.039
DPS ζ=0.3
5.50±0.39
0.701
0.123
1.128
DPS ζ=1
8.92±1.94
1.137
0.606
3.743
DPS ζ=3
6.23±4.32
0.793
1.347
10.282
Appendix
Table 5: Higher-replicate 1D stability stress test, with dofref=7.85 , ϵ=σy , P=12 probes, ensembles of 512 , and 6 realisations. The exact control remains stable. Low-weight DPS remains below the warranted resolution, while larger weights are noisy at this reduced probe budget, consistent with the unstable high- ζ maps in Figure 1 .
Pretrained diffusion models are effective priors for Bayesian inverse problems, but posterior sampling with these priors is often costly because data-consistency guidance is applied throughout the full reverse trajectory. Existing methods have shown that vector-Jacobian products through the denoiser can sometimes be avoided, yet they typically still rely on dense guidance through the full trajectory or expensive inner solves. We introduce Sparse Scheduled Diffusion Guidance for Inverse Problems (Spin), a solver that avoids starting posterior sampling from pure noise. Spin first samples from a posterior time-marginal at an intermediate timestep t∗, and then uses that state as a warm start for a guided reverse diffusion process. At guidance time, instead of enforcing the measurement constraint at every denoising step, Spin applies lightweight corrections only at scheduled timesteps where the denoiser can still clean up artifacts. The resulting procedure decouples prior refinement from data consistency: the prior supplies denoising, while lightweight pixel-space optimization enforces the measurement constraint without backpropagation through the denoiser or decoder. Across linear and nonlinear inverse problems on FFHQ and ImageNet, Spin achieves competitive reconstruction quality with a substantially better runtime--memory profile, running 2x faster on pixel-space models and up to 50x faster on latent diffusion models, with lower memory costs.
Diffusion posterior sampling conditions diffusion priors on measurements, but data-consistency updates are typically scaled by hand-tuned guidance weights and can destabilize sampling under stiff, operator-dependent curvature. We replace scalar guidance with a per-noise-level damped Gauss--Newton correction computed in diffusion-state coordinates. The correction pulls likelihood gradients back through the denoiser, uses a one-sided curvature model that avoids forward denoiser Jacobians, and applies diffusion-calibrated rank-one damping aligned with the denoiser residual. Each correction is solved with matrix-free GMRES using automatic differentiation, and sampling proceeds with a variance-preserving Langevin transition with a closed-form drift/noise split. On FFHQ and ImageNet across inverse problems, it achieves competitive PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS while running markedly faster than most of the compared baselines; on accelerated MRI reconstruction, it achieves the best PSNR/SSIM among the compared baselines.
Seunghyeok Shin, Minwoo Kim, Dabin Kim +1
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Inha University, Incheon, 22212, South Korea.
Test-time guidance is a widely used mechanism for steering pretrained diffusion models toward outcomes specified by a reward function. Existing approaches, however, focus on maximizing reward rather than sampling from the true Bayesian posterior, leading to miscalibrated inference. In this work, we show that common test-time guidance methods do not recover the correct posterior distribution and identify the structural approximations responsible for this failure. We then propose consistent alternative estimators that enable calibrated sampling from the Bayesian posterior. We significantly outperform previous methods on a set of Bayesian inference tasks, and set a new state-of-the-art PSNR in black hole image reconstruction.
Daniel Geyfman, Felix Draxler, Jan Groeneveld +3
Department of Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA · Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea · Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, Redwood City, CA, USA