Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

sbi reloaded: a toolkit for simulation-based inference workflows

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims sbi is a flexible, extensive, well-tested toolkit for simulation-based Bayesian inference workflows, covering neural posterior, likelihood, and ratio estimation with samplers and diagnostics.

desk verdict Solid software description for a useful SBI toolkit; 'well-tested' is asserted rather than shown in the paper, but the external repo likely holds the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17337 v2 pith:H4GAR2SU submitted 2024-11-26 cs.LG

Jan Boelts , Michael Deistler , Manuel Gloeckler , Álvaro Tejero-Cantero , Jan-Matthis Lueckmann , Guy Moss , Peter Steinbach , Thomas Moreau
show 25 more authors
Fabio Muratore Julia Linhart Conor Durkan Julius Vetter Benjamin Kurt Miller Maternus Herold Abolfazl Ziaeemehr Matthijs Pals Theo Gruner Sebastian Bischoff Nastya Krouglova Richard Gao Janne K. Lappalainen Bálint Mucsányi Felix Pei Auguste Schulz Zinovia Stefanidi Pedro Rodrigues Cornelius Schröder Faried Abu Zaid Jonas Beck Jaivardhan Kapoor David S. Greenberg Pedro J. Gonçalves Jakob H. Macke
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords simulation-basedinferenceBayesianneuralposteriorestimationlikelihoodratioamortizednormalizingflowsdiagnostics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper describes sbi, a software toolkit for simulation-based Bayesian inference. The central claim is that the toolkit now covers a broad workflow: neural posterior estimation, neural likelihood estimation, and neural ratio estimation, in amortized or sequential modes, together with a range of density estimators, samplers, diagnostic tools, and visualization utilities. If the implementations are correct, scientists and engineers can apply modern simulation-based inference to simulators that are black-box, non-differentiable, or too slow for likelihood-based methods. The paper is a software description; it does not introduce new inference algorithms.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modular pipeline: simulator and prior, conditional density estimator, method class, training loop, sampler, diagnostics, and analysis. Each stage has a default setting that works out of the box and a low-level interface that exposes full control. That division lets one codebase host NPE, NLE, and NRE (each amortized or sequential) while sharing the same training, sampling, and diagnostic machinery, and lets users swap density estimators such as normalizing flows, diffusion models, flow matching, and mixture density networks without changing the rest of the workflow.

What would settle it

Run sbi on a simulator with a known analytic posterior (for example, a Gaussian linear model) and use simulation-based calibration or expected coverage to check whether the returned posterior is calibrated; systematic miscalibration would falsify the claim that the toolkit is reliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, in the paper's own terms, is that sbi has matured into a flexible, extensive, and well-tested toolkit for simulation-based Bayesian inference workflows. It supports any offline simulator and prior, offers both preconfigured defaults and full customization at every pipeline stage, and includes methods whose reliability practitioners can check with simulation-based calibration, expected coverage, local C2ST, and TARP diagnostics. The paper argues that this combination is what lets a broad set of users apply state-of-the-art SBI to black-box simulators, and that the community-driven extension of the package since its original release is what made the workflow complete.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's claim that sbi is "well-tested" rests on the correctness of the implementations in the public code repository, which the preprint does not demonstrate with tests, benchmarks, or error analysis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Domain scientists with non-differentiable simulators can obtain Bayesian posterior distributions without writing likelihood or gradient code.
  • Users can amortize: after one training run, posterior inference for any new observation needs no further simulations.
  • Sequential modes focus simulation effort near a given observation, which can reduce total simulation cost.
  • Built-in diagnostics such as simulation-based calibration, expected coverage, local C2ST, and TARP give practitioners a way to test whether the approximate posterior is trustworthy.
  • A wide choice of density estimators, embedding networks, and samplers lets users match the toolkit to their problem's structure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The preprint itself reports no benchmark runs, so on a new simulator a practitioner should treat the "well-tested" claim as a promise to be verified locally, not a demonstrated result.
  • If the modular architecture is as clean as described, it could serve as a neutral substrate for comparing SBI methods, but that would require community benchmark suites with fixed simulators and metrics.
  • The feature list suggests stress tests worth running: discrete-continuous mixtures, high-dimensional observations with learned embeddings, and low-simulation-budget sequential problems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents sbi, a PyTorch-based open-source package for simulation-based Bayesian inference. It describes the package's motivation, its feature set (including NPE, NLE, NRE, normalizing flows, flow matching, samplers, diagnostics, and analysis tools), and its relation to competing software. The paper functions as a release note for a major update of the previously published sbi package, emphasizing flexibility, customizability, and 'well-tested default settings.'

Significance. If the claims hold, sbi is an important infrastructure contribution: it is already widely used across scientific fields, and the paper provides a consolidated description of its current capabilities. The open-source code, documentation, and tutorials are significant strengths. However, the manuscript's central 'well-tested' assertion is not supported by in-paper evidence; the reliability claims rest on the external repository and prior work. The paper's value as a citable description of the package is clear, but it needs to substantiate or temper its robustness claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Section 2 (Description)] The abstract promises 'well-tested default settings' and Section 2 refers to a 'preconfigured training loop with established default values,' but the manuscript provides no test results, benchmark evaluations, coverage metrics, or error analyses for any of the listed methods (NPE, NLE, NRE, flow matching, samplers, SBC, etc.). The only supporting evidence is the public GitHub repository and prior application papers, which are not independently assessed in this paper. Given that the usability proposition rests on the correctness of the implementations and the quality of the defaults, this is a load-bearing gap. I recommend adding a short validation section that reports on the package's test suite (e.g., number of tests, CI coverage) or presents a standard benchmark (e.g., posterior recovery on a simple simulator), or alternatively rewriting the 'well-tested' claim to state that defaults are based on prior published studies.
  2. [Section 2, first sentence] The statement 'sbi supports any kind of (offline) simulator and prior' is too strong. The package requires the simulator to be a Python callable that returns data convertible to PyTorch tensors, and priors must be representable in the supported distribution classes. As written, the claim could mislead users with simulators returning non-tensor objects or priors with complex constraints. Please revise to 'a wide range of simulators and priors' and specify the data format assumptions in the 'Simulator & prior' paragraph.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Author list] The name 'Julius V etter' contains an erroneous space; please ensure the correct spelling is used.
  2. [References, [9]] In reference [9], 'arVix' should be 'arXiv' in the DOI URL.
  3. [Section 3] The statement that development of the Lampe package 'has stopped in favor of the sbi package in July 2024' is a factual claim about a third-party project; please provide a source or temper the wording.
  4. [Figure 1] Marking new features in red only may hinder readers with color vision deficiencies; consider adding symbols or a hatched pattern.
  5. [Section 2, Sampling] The phrase 'can use importance sampling to correct for potential inaccuracies in the posterior if the likelihood is available' is unclear about whether the likelihood is for the simulator or an approximation; please clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: this is a software-description paper, and the 'well-tested default settings' claim is unverified in the manuscript but not derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper contains no mathematical derivation chain, no fitted parameters, and no predictive quantity that could reduce to its inputs by construction. Its central claim is that the sbi package implements a broad set of simulation-based inference methods, network architectures, samplers, and diagnostics; this is a descriptive claim about an existing code artifact, not a result derived within the manuscript. The abstract and Section 2 assert 'well-tested default settings' and a 'preconfigured training loop with established default values,' but the paper presents no tests or benchmarks to substantiate those words. That is a missing-support gap, not circularity: the claimed reliability is not used to derive any further result, and nothing in the paper defines 'well-tested' in terms of the package's own outputs. The text also cites many prior papers, some by the same authors, to support statements such as 'The sbi package is already used extensively by the machine learning research community [6–18].' Those citations document adoption and development history, but they are not load-bearing for the functional claim that particular algorithms exist in the package; a reader can verify that claim directly from the repository. Thus there is a mild reliance on self-citation as indirect evidence of quality, but no circular step in the technical sense, and the central claim retains independent content. Score 1 reflects this mild self-citation flavor rather than any reduction by definition or construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no mathematical derivation or new entities. The central claims about the software's capabilities rely on the correctness of the implementations and the accuracy of the feature descriptions, neither of which is independently verified in the preprint.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The sbi package correctly implements the described SBI algorithms and is well-tested.
    The paper lists features such as normalizing flows, flow matching, MCMC samplers, and diagnostics (Section 2) but provides no benchmarks or test results. The claim of correctness rests on the public repository and prior usage.
  • domain assumption The package supports arbitrary simulators and priors as described.
    The description in Section 2 claims support for 'any kind of offline simulator and prior', but this is a design assertion not verified in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of sbi reloaded: a toolkit for simulation-based inference workflows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H4GAR2SU

@misc{pith2026241117337,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: sbi reloaded: a toolkit for simulation-based inference workflows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H4GAR2SU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17337}
}
read the original abstract

Scientists and engineers use simulators to model empirically observed phenomena. However, tuning the parameters of a simulator to ensure its outputs match observed data presents a significant challenge. Simulation-based inference (SBI) addresses this by enabling Bayesian inference for simulators, identifying parameters that match observed data and align with prior knowledge. Unlike traditional Bayesian inference, SBI only needs access to simulations from the model and does not require evaluations of the likelihood function. In addition, SBI algorithms do not require gradients through the simulator, allow for massive parallelization of simulations, and can perform inference for different observations without further simulations or training, thereby amortizing inference. Over the past years, we have developed, maintained, and extended sbi, a PyTorch-based package that implements Bayesian SBI algorithms based on neural networks. The sbi toolkit implements a wide range of inference methods, neural network architectures, sampling methods, and diagnostic tools. In addition, it provides well-tested default settings, but also offers flexibility to fully customize every step of the simulation-based inference workflow. Taken together, the sbi toolkit enables scientists and engineers to apply state-of-the-art SBI methods to black-box simulators, opening up new possibilities for aligning simulations with empirically observed data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17337 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Features of the sbi package. Components that were added since the initial release described in Tejero￾Cantero et al. [5] are marked in red. A significant challenge in making SBI algorithms accessible to a broader community lies in accommodating diverse and complex simulators, as well as varying degrees of flexibility in each step of the inference process. To address this, sbi provides pre-configured defaults for all… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Learning Individual Reproductive Behavior from Aggregate Fertility Rates via Neural Posterior Estimation

    stat.AP 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    An SNPE-based framework infers individual reproductive behavior parameters from aggregate age-specific fertility rates and successfully predicts out-of-sample micro-level distributions.

  2. Microlensing Detection and Inference via Learned Bayes Factors

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A unified transformer-based pipeline detects 99.9% of recoverable simulated microlensing events and outperforms literature hard cuts in the short-duration finite-source regime with amortized neural posterior inference.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Fast ε-free inference of simulation models with bayesian conditional density estimation

    George Papamakarios and Iain Murray. Fast ε-free inference of simulation models with bayesian conditional density estimation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1605.06376

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1605.06376 2016

  2. [2]

    Sequential neural likelihood: Fast likelihood-free inference with autoregressive flows

    George Papamakarios, David Sterratt, and Iain Murray. Sequential neural likelihood: Fast likelihood-free inference with autoregressive flows. In The 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 837–848. PMLR, 2019. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1805.07226

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.07226 2019

  3. [3]

    Likelihood-free mcmc with amortized approximate ratio estimators

    Joeri Hermans, V olodimir Begy, and Gilles Louppe. Likelihood-free mcmc with amortized approximate ratio estimators. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4239–4248. PMLR, 2020. doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.1903.04057

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.04057 2020

  4. [4]

    S. A. Sisson, Fan Y ., and Beaumont M. A. Overview of abc. InHandbook of Approximate Bayesian Computation, Chapman & Hall/CRC Handbooks of Modern Statistical Methods, chapter 1. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group,

    work page

  5. [5]

    Goncalves, David S

    Alvaro Tejero-Cantero, Jan Boelts, Michael Deistler, Jan-Matthis Lueckmann, Conor Durkan, Pedro J. Goncalves, David S. Greenberg, and Jakob H. Macke. sbi: A toolkit for simulation-based inference. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(52):2505, 2020. doi: 10.21105/joss.02505

    doi:10.21105/joss.02505 2020

  6. [6]

    Goncalves, and Jakob H

    Michael Deistler, Pedro J. Goncalves, and Jakob H. Macke. Truncated proposals for scalable and hassle-free simulation-based inference. In Alice H. Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, and Kyunghyun Cho, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.04815

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.04815 2022

  7. [7]

    Variational methods for simulation-based inference

    Manuel Glöckler, Michael Deistler, and Jakob H Macke. Variational methods for simulation-based inference. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.04176

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.04176 2022

  8. [8]

    Neural posterior domain randomization

    Fabio Muratore, Theo Gruner, Florian Wiese, Boris Belousov, Michael Gienger, and Jan Peters. Neural posterior domain randomization. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 1532–1542. PMLR, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Adversarial robustness of amortized bayesian inference

    Manuel Gloeckler, Michael Deistler, and Jakob H Macke. Adversarial robustness of amortized bayesian inference. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11493–11524. PMLR, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arVix.2305. 14984

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Doyne Farmer, and Sebastian M Schmon

    Joel Dyer, Patrick Cannon, J. Doyne Farmer, and Sebastian M Schmon. Calibrating agent-based models to microdata with graph neural networks. In ICML 2022 Workshop AI for Agent-Based Modelling , 2022. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2206.07570

    2022 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Sequential neural posterior and likelihood approximation

    Samuel Wiqvist, Jes Frellsen, and Umberto Picchini. Sequential neural posterior and likelihood approximation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.06522, 2021. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2102.06522

    2021 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Bayesian model comparison for simulation-based inference

    A Spurio Mancini, MM Docherty, MA Price, and JD McEwen. Bayesian model comparison for simulation-based inference. RAS Techniques and Instruments, 2(1):710–722, 2023. doi: 10.1093/rasti/rzad051

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Simulation-based inference using surjective sequential neural likelihood estimation

    Simon Dirmeier, Carlo Albert, and Fernando Perez-Cruz. Simulation-based inference using surjective sequential neural likelihood estimation. arXiv preprint, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01054

    2023 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Generalized bayesian inference for scientific simulators via amortized cost estimation

    Richard Gao, Michael Deistler, and Jakob H Macke. Generalized bayesian inference for scientific simulators via amortized cost estimation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:80191–80219, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Manuel Gloeckler, Michael Deistler, Christian Dietrich Weilbach, Frank Wood, and Jakob H. Macke. All- in-one simulation-based inference. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.09636

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    A crisis in simulation- based inference? beware, your posterior approximations can be unfaithful

    Joeri Hermans, Arnaud Delaunoy, François Rozet, Antoine Wehenkel, and Gilles Louppe. A crisis in simulation- based inference? beware, your posterior approximations can be unfaithful. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    L-c2st: Local diagnostics for posterior approximations in simulation-based inference

    Julia Linhart, Alexandre Gramfort, and Pedro Rodrigues. L-c2st: Local diagnostics for posterior approximations in simulation-based inference. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2306.03580

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Flexible and efficient simulation-based inference for models of decision-making

    Jan Boelts, Jan-Matthis Lueckmann, Richard Gao, and Jakob H Macke. Flexible and efficient simulation-based inference for models of decision-making. Elife, 11:e77220, 2022. doi: 10.7554/eLife.77220

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    A biophysical account of multiplication by a single neuron

    Lukas N Groschner, Jonatan G Malis, Birte Zuidinga, and Alexander Borst. A biophysical account of multiplication by a single neuron. Nature, 603(7899):119–123, 2022. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04428-3. 4 sbi reloaded: A toolkit for simulation-based inference workflows

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Embryo-uterine interaction coordinates mouse embryogenesis during implantation

    Vladyslav Bondarenko, Mikhail Nikolaev, Dimitri Kromm, Roman Belousov, Adrian Wolny, Marloes Blotenburg, Peter Zeller, Saba Rezakhani, Johannes Hugger, Virginie Uhlmann, et al. Embryo-uterine interaction coordinates mouse embryogenesis during implantation. The EMBO Journal, 42...

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Meta-learning families of plasticity rules in recurrent spiking networks using simulation-based inference

    Basile Confavreux, Poornima Ramesh, Pedro J Goncalves, Jakob H Macke, and Tim V ogels. Meta-learning families of plasticity rules in recurrent spiking networks using simulation-based inference. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:13545–13558, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Disinhi- bition by vip interneurons is orthogonal to cross-modal attentional modulation in primary visual cortex

    Dylan Myers-Joseph, Katharina A Wilmes, Marian Fernandez-Otero, Claudia Clopath, and Adil G Khan. Disinhi- bition by vip interneurons is orthogonal to cross-modal attentional modulation in primary visual cortex. Neuron, 112(4):628–645, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2023.11.006

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Neural networks enable efficient and accurate simulation-based inference of evolutionary parameters from adaptation dynamics

    Grace Avecilla, Julie N Chuong, Fangfei Li, Gavin Sherlock, David Gresham, and Yoav Ram. Neural networks enable efficient and accurate simulation-based inference of evolutionary parameters from adaptation dynamics. PLoS biology, 20(5):e3001633, 2022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001633

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Theta and gamma rhythmic coding through two spike output modes in the hippocampus during spatial navigation

    Eric Lowet, Daniel J Sheehan, Ulises Chialva, Rodrigo De Oliveira Pena, Rebecca A Mount, Sheng Xiao, Samuel L Zhou, Hua-an Tseng, Howard Gritton, Sanaya Shroff, et al. Theta and gamma rhythmic coding through two spike output modes in the hippocampus during spatial navigation. ...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Combined statistical-mechanistic modeling links ion channel genes to physiology of cortical neuron types

    Yves Bernaerts, Michael Deistler, Pedro J Gonçalves, Jonas Beck, Marcel Stimberg, Federico Scala, Andreas S Tolias, Jakob Macke, Dmitry Kobak, and Philipp Berens. Combined statistical-mechanistic modeling links ion channel genes to physiology of cortical neuron types. bioRxiv,...

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Neural simulation-based inference approach for characterizing the galactic center γ-ray excess

    Siddharth Mishra-Sharma and Kyle Cranmer. Neural simulation-based inference approach for characterizing the galactic center γ-ray excess. Physical Review D, 105(6):063017, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063017

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Black-box bayesian inference for economic agent-based models

    Joel Dyer, Patrick Cannon, J Doyne Farmer, and Sebastian Schmon. Black-box bayesian inference for economic agent-based models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00625, 2022. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2202.00625

    2022 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    Amortized bayesian inference on generative dynamical network models of epilepsy using deep neural density estimators

    Meysam Hashemi, Anirudh N Vattikonda, Jayant Jha, Viktor Sip, Marmaduke M Woodman, Fabrice Bartolomei, and Viktor K Jirsa. Amortized bayesian inference on generative dynamical network models of epilepsy using deep neural density estimators. Neural Networks, 163:178–194, 2023. ...

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Accelerated bayesian sed modeling using amortized neural posterior estimation

    ChangHoon Hahn and Peter Melchior. Accelerated bayesian sed modeling using amortized neural posterior estimation. The Astrophysical Journal, 938(1):11, 2022. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7b84

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Field-level simulation-based inference of galaxy clustering with convolutional neural networks

    Pablo Lemos, Liam Parker, ChangHoon Hahn, Shirley Ho, Michael Eickenberg, Jiamin Hou, Elena Massara, Chirag Modi, Azadeh Moradinezhad Dizgah, Bruno Régaldo-Saint Blancard, et al. Field-level simulation-based inference of galaxy clustering with convolutional neural networks. Ph...

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Energy-efficient network activity from disparate circuit parameters

    Michael Deistler, Jakob H Macke, and Pedro J Gonçalves. Energy-efficient network activity from disparate circuit parameters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(44):e2207632119, 2022. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 2207632119

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Nina Rößler, Tassilo Jungenitz, Albrecht Sigler, Alexander Bird, Martin Mittag, Jeong Seop Rhee, Thomas Deller, Hermann Cuntz, Nils Brose, Stephan W Schwarzacher, et al. Skewed distribution of spines is independent of presynaptic transmitter release and synaptic plasticity, an...

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Simulation-based inference of single-molecule force spectroscopy

    Lars Dingeldein, Pilar Cossio, and Roberto Covino. Simulation-based inference of single-molecule force spectroscopy. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 4(2):025009, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2022.11.920

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Bayesian inference of a spectral graph model for brain oscillations

    Huaqing Jin, Parul Verma, Fei Jiang, Srikantan S Nagarajan, and Ashish Raj. Bayesian inference of a spectral graph model for brain oscillations. NeuroImage, 279:120278, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120278

    2023

  27. [35]

    Simulation-based inference for efficient identification of generative models in computational connectomics

    Jan Boelts, Philipp Harth, Richard Gao, Daniel Udvary, Felipe Yáñez, Daniel Baum, Hans-Christian Hege, Marcel Oberlaender, and Jakob H Macke. Simulation-based inference for efficient identification of generative models in computational connectomics. PLOS Computational Biology,...

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Deep inverse modeling reveals dynamic-dependent invariances in neural circuit mechanisms

    Richard Gao, Michael Deistler, Auguste Schulz, Pedro J Gonçalves, and Jakob H Macke. Deep inverse modeling reveals dynamic-dependent invariances in neural circuit mechanisms. bioRxiv, pages 2024–08, 2024. doi: 10.1101/2024.08.21.608969

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Kelly, Adrianne L

    Xiaoyu Wang, Ryan P. Kelly, Adrianne L. Jenner, David J. Warne, and Christopher Drovandi. A comprehensive guide to simulation-based inference in computational biology, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Gael Varoquaux. joblib. https://github.com/joblib/joblib, 2008

    2008

  31. [39]

    Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and inference

    George Papamakarios, Eric Nalisnick, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Shakir Mohamed, and Balaji Lakshminarayanan. Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(57):1–64,

  32. [40]

    Automatic posterior transformation for likelihood- free inference

    David Greenberg, Marcel Nonnenmacher, and Jakob Macke. Automatic posterior transformation for likelihood- free inference. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2404–2414. PMLR, 2019. doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.1905.07488

    2019 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    nflows: Normalizing flows in pytorch

    Conor Durkan, Artur Bekasov, George Papamakarios, and Iain Murray. nflows: Normalizing flows in pytorch. https://github.com/bayesiains/nflows, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Zuko - normalizing flows in pytorch

    Francois Rozet. Zuko - normalizing flows in pytorch. https://github.com/probabilists/zuko, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Score- based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score- based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2011.13456

    2021 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    Compositional score modeling for simulation-based inference

    Tomas Geffner, George Papamakarios, and Andriy Mnih. Compositional score modeling for simulation-based inference. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11098–11116. PMLR, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2209.14249

    2023 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    Neural score estimation: Likelihood-free inference with conditional score based diffusion models

    Jack Simons, Louis Sharrock, Song Liu, and Mark Beaumont. Neural score estimation: Likelihood-free inference with conditional score based diffusion models. In Fifth Symposium on Advances in Approximate Bayesian Inference, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.04872

    2023 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    Mixture density networks

    C M Bishop. Mixture density networks. Technical Report. Aston University, Birmingham, 1994

    1994

  39. [47]

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky T. Q. Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matthew Le. Flow matching for generative modeling. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.02747

    2023 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    Macke, and Bernhard Schölkopf

    Jonas Bernhard Wildberger, Maximilian Dax, Simon Buchholz, Stephen R Green, Jakob H. Macke, and Bernhard Schölkopf. Flow matching for scalable simulation-based inference. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.17161

    2023 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    Chen, Martin Jankowiak, Fritz Obermeyer, Neeraj Pradhan, Theofanis Karaletsos, Rohit Singh, Paul A

    Eli Bingham, Jonathan P. Chen, Martin Jankowiak, Fritz Obermeyer, Neeraj Pradhan, Theofanis Karaletsos, Rohit Singh, Paul A. Szerlip, Paul Horsfall, and Noah D. Goodman. Pyro: Deep universal probabilistic programming. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 20:28:1–28:6, 2019. doi: 10.48550/arX...

    2019 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Pymc: a modern, and comprehensive probabilistic programming framework in python

    Oriol Abril-Pla, Virgile Andreani, Colin Carroll, Larry Dong, Christopher J Fonnesbeck, Maxim Kochurov, Ravin Kumar, Junpeng Lao, Christian C Luhmann, Osvaldo A Martin, et al. Pymc: a modern, and comprehensive probabilistic programming framework in python. PeerJ Computer Scien...

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Validating bayesian inference algorithms with simulation-based calibration

    Sean Talts, Michael Betancourt, Daniel Simpson, Aki Vehtari, and Andrew Gelman. Validating bayesian inference algorithms with simulation-based calibration. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.06788, 2018. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1804. 06788

    2018 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    Sampling-based accuracy testing of posterior estimators for general inference

    Pablo Lemos, Adam Coogan, Yashar Hezaveh, and Laurence Perreault-Levasseur. Sampling-based accuracy testing of posterior estimators for general inference. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 19256–19273. PMLR, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.03026

    2023 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    Arviz a unified library for exploratory analysis of bayesian models in python

    Ravin Kumar, Colin Carroll, Ari Hartikainen, and Osvaldo Martin. Arviz a unified library for exploratory analysis of bayesian models in python. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(33):1143, 2019. doi: 10.21105/joss.01143

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    Stan: A probabilistic programming language for bayesian inference and optimization

    Andrew Gelman, Daniel Lee, and Jiqiang Guo. Stan: A probabilistic programming language for bayesian inference and optimization. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics , 40(5):530–543, 2015. doi: 10.3102/1076998615606113

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    Composable effects for flexible and accelerated probabilistic programming in numpyro

    Du Phan, Neeraj Pradhan, and Martin Jankowiak. Composable effects for flexible and accelerated probabilistic programming in numpyro. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554, 2019. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.11554

    1912 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    Turing: a language for flexible probabilistic inference

    Hong Ge, Kai Xu, and Zoubin Ghahramani. Turing: a language for flexible probabilistic inference. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2018, 9-11 April 2018, Playa Blanca, Lanzarote, Canary Islands, Spain, pages 1682–1690, 2018. URL http...

    2018

  49. [57]

    Doyne Farmer, and Michael Wooldridge

    Arnau Quera-Bofarull, Joel Dyer, Anisoara Calinescu, J. Doyne Farmer, and Michael Wooldridge. Blackbirds: Black-box inference for differentiable simulators. Journal of Open Source Software, 8(89):5776, 2023. doi: 10.21105/joss.05776. URL https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05776

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    Lampe: Likelihood-free amortized posterior estimation

    François Rozet, Arnaud Delaunoy, Benjamin Miller, et al. Lampe: Likelihood-free amortized posterior estimation. Statistical Software, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Radev, Marvin Schmitt, Lukas Schumacher, Lasse Elsemüller, Valentin Pratz, Yannik Schälte, Ullrich Köthe, and Paul-Christian Bürkner

    Stefan T. Radev, Marvin Schmitt, Lukas Schumacher, Lasse Elsemüller, Valentin Pratz, Yannik Schälte, Ullrich Köthe, and Paul-Christian Bürkner. BayesFlow: Amortized Bayesian workflows with neural networks. Journal of Open Source Software, 8(89):5702, 2023. doi: 10.21105/joss.05702

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    Swyft: A system for scientific simulation-based inference at scale

    undark lab. Swyft: A system for scientific simulation-based inference at scale. https://github.com/ undark-lab/swyft, 2023. Version 0.4.5

    2023

  53. [61]

    Simulation-based inference with the python package sbijax, 2024

    Simon Dirmeier, Simone Ulzega, Antonietta Mira, and Carlo Albert. Simulation-based inference with the python package sbijax, 2024. 6

    2024

  54. [2018]

    doi: 10.1201/9781315117195

    ISBN 9781439881507. doi: 10.1201/9781315117195

    doi

  55. [2021]

    5 sbi reloaded: A toolkit for simulation-based inference workflows

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.02762. 5 sbi reloaded: A toolkit for simulation-based inference workflows

    1912 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.