Split Gibbs sampling (SGS) is a popular framework for posterior sampling in Bayesian imaging inverse problems. It decouples a Gaussian data-fidelity term from a complex prior through an auxiliary variable, so the data variable is updated exactly and only the prior-side conditional is hard to sample. Existing samplers treat this conditional in one of two ways. Plug-and-play SGS runs a multi-step diffusion denoiser at every iteration, which is expensive and lacks non-asymptotic guarantees. Langevin-within-SGS takes cheap overdamped Langevin steps but needs many iterations. We propose RED-KLwSGS, which keeps the exact Gaussian update for the data variable and updates the auxiliary variable with underdamped (kinetic) Langevin diffusions driven by a one-shot denoising score, at the same per-iteration cost as Langevin-within-SGS. We prove non-asymptotic Wasserstein-2 convergence in continuous and discrete time for strongly log-concave priors. We also introduce Joint-RED-KLwSGS, which applies kinetic Langevin diffusions to both variables. Experiments with Denoising diffusion probabilistic models as diffusion priors on FFHQ and ImageNet datasets show faster convergence and high-quality image reconstruction.
Figures & tables
Method
Time/iter (s)
Iterations
Total time (s)
PnP-SGS
2.121
22
46.64
RED-LwSGS
0.087
600
52.2
RED-KLwSGS (ours)
0.091
350
31.5
Table 1: Time per iteration, iterations, and total time to reach PSNR =26.5 dB on an FFHQ image for motion deblurring task.
Figure 1: Visual convergence of X(k) on Gaussian deblurring of an FFHQ image, over 800 Gibbs iterations. Rows show RED-LwSGS, RED-KLwSGS (ours), and Joint-RED-KLwSGS (ours), each started from the same initialization; columns show iterations k=10,100,200,300,400,500,800 .
Figure 2: Convergence of RED-LwSGS (baseline), RED-KLwSGS (ours), and Joint-RED-KLwSGS (ours) for Gaussian deblurring, motion deblurring, and super-resolution (rows), on ten FFHQ images, measured by PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS (columns). Solid lines show the mean over independent runs per method; shaded bands show ±1 standard deviation.
SPA
TV-ADMM
PnP-ADMM
DDRM
PnP-SGS
RED-LwSGS
RED-KLwSGS (ours)
Joint-RED-KLwSGS (ours)
Deblurring (Gaussian)
PSNR ↑
23.17
22.37
24.93
23.36
27.96
28.01
29.51
29.32
SSIM ↑
0.499
0.801
0.812
0.767
0.837
0.842
0.865
0.853
LPIPS ↓
0.452
0.507
0.441
0.332
0.331
0.352
0.336
0.341
Deblurring (motion)
PSNR ↑
17.73
21.36
24.65
N/A
28.46
28.22
29.74
29.43
SSIM ↑
0.211
0.751
0.825
N/A
0.828
0.823
0.858
0.851
LPIPS ↓
0.446
0.508
0.405
N/A
0.294
0.292
0.302
0.315
Table 2: FFHQ 256×256 data set: image reconstruction (PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS) obtained by the compared methods. Bold : best, underline : second best.
SPA
TV-ADMM
PnP-ADMM
DDRM
PnP-SGS
RED-LwSGS
RED-KLwSGS (ours)
Joint-RED-KLwSGS (ours)
Deblurring (Gaussian)
PSNR ↑
21.08
19.99
21.81
22.73
21.76
23.12
23.92
23.85
SSIM ↑
0.577
0.634
0.669
0.705
0.701
0.712
0.735
0.729
LPIPS ↓
0.537
0.588
0.519
0.427
0.399
0.359
0.349
0.365
Deblurring (motion)
PSNR ↑
20.49
20.79
21.98
N/A
21.47
22.73
24.52
24.21
SSIM ↑
0.681
0.677
0.702
N/A
0.695
0.709
0.743
0.739
LPIPS ↓
0.538
0.525
0.483
N/A
0.372
0.339
0.342
0.325
Table 3: ImageNet 256×256 data set: image reconstruction (PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS) obtained by the compared methods.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Convergence of RED-LwSGS (baseline), RED-KLwSGS (ours), and Joint-RED-KLwSGS (ours) for Gaussian deblurring, motion deblurring, and super-resolution (rows), on ten ImageNet images, measured by PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS (columns).
Figure 4: Visual convergence of X(k) on motion deblurring of an FFHQ image, over 800 Gibbs iterations.
Figure 5: Visual convergence of X(k) on super-resolution of an FFHQ image, over 800 Gibbs iterations.
Figure 6: Visual convergence of X(k) on Gaussian deblurring of an ImageNet image, over 800 Gibbs iterations.
Figure 7: Visual convergence of X(k) on motion deblurring of an ImageNet image, over 800 Gibbs iterations.
Figure 8: Visual convergence of X(k) on super-resolution of an ImageNet image, over 800 Gibbs iterations.
This paper addresses the issue of inversion in cases where (1) the observation system is modeled by a linear transformation and additive error, (2) the problem is ill-posed and regularization relies on a Bayesian strategy, (3)~the prior is modeled by a diffusion process adjusted on an available large set of examples. In this context, it is known that the issue of posterior sampling is a thorny one and the paper introduces a Gibbs algorithm. It appears that this avenue has not been explored, and we show that it is particularly effective and remarkably simple. In addition, it provides clear elements regarding convergence guarantees in a specific case and arguments supporting such guarantees in practical cases. The results are clearly confirmed by numerical simulations based on a toy example.
Jean-François Giovannelli
Groupe Signal-Image, IMS (Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, BINP), Talence, France
We study posterior sampling for inverse problems in discrete state spaces using discrete diffusion models as generative priors. While continuous diffusion models have become widely used for inverse problems, their discrete counterparts remain comparatively underexplored. Existing discrete posterior samplers often rely on continuous relaxations of discrete variables, Gibbs-style updates, or mechanisms specialized to particular corruption processes, which can limit scalability or generality. We propose ΔLPS, a Discrete Langevin-Inspired Posterior Sampler that uses gradient information to identify promising discrete moves without leaving the discrete state space. The resulting approach enables efficient parallel updates across all token dimensions and is agnostic to the training paradigm of the discrete diffusion prior, including masked and uniform-state diffusion. We evaluate our method on image restoration tasks across MNIST, CIFAR, and FFHQ, as well as spatial mapping, covering linear, nonlinear, and blind inverse problems. Across these settings, we improve over recent discrete diffusion posterior samplers and are competitive with strong continuous diffusion-based inverse solvers. Our results suggest that fully discrete, gradient-informed posterior samplers offer a scalable and general path toward solving inverse problems over discrete representations.
Diffusion-based posterior sampling (PS) is a leading framework for imaging inverse problems, combining learned priors with measurement constraints. Yet, its standard formulations rely on instantaneous data-consistent estimates, which induce temporal variability in the reverse dynamics. We reinterpret PS from a dynamical perspective, showing that the standard PS update corresponds to a first-order discretization of the diffusion dynamics plus a residual correction capturing the mismatch between the denoised prediction and the data-consistent estimate. A second-order discretization, however, naturally introduces a temporal correction based on the variation of consecutive estimates. Building on this, we propose LAMP, combining the second-order update with the residual correction characterizing a PS technique. LAMP thus inherits a lagged temporal correction, and it can be implemented as a modular plug-in over the PS backbone. We show that LAMP preserves the structure of a posterior sampler, and we perform a one-step risk analysis to characterize when LAMP improves the reverse transition via a bias-variance trade-off. Experiments across multiple imaging tasks demonstrate consistent improvements over strong baselines such as DiffPIR and DDRM, without increasing the number of denoising evaluations.
Davide Evangelista, Elena Morotti, Francesco Pivi +1
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering University of Bologna · Dept. of Political and Social Sciences University of Bologna