arxiv: 2605.09718 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-10 · 📊 stat.ML · cs.LG· math.PR· math.ST· stat.TH

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Learning stochastic multiscale models through normalizing flows

Anan Saha, Arnab Ganguly

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 03:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.ML cs.LGmath.PRmath.STstat.TH

keywords normalizing flowsstochastic averagingmultiscale SDEsmodel reductioninvariant distributionvariational inferencesingle trajectorydata-driven learning

0 comments

The pith

Normalizing flows learn the invariant distribution of unobserved fast variables to derive reduced stochastic models from a single slow trajectory.

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

This paper introduces a trajectory-based framework for learning effective reduced dynamics in multiscale stochastic systems where only the slow component is observed. It begins with stochastic averaging to obtain a principled reduced SDE that explicitly depends on the invariant distribution of the fast process, a quantity normally obtained from an intractable PDE. Normalizing flows are then used to parameterize this distribution expressively in latent space and trained end-to-end by maximizing a penalized likelihood that arises directly from the reduced dynamics. A second flow approximates the posterior over parameters to quantify epistemic uncertainty. The result is a scalable method that respects the original multiscale structure without requiring dense space-time data or grid-based solvers.

Core claim

The paper claims that the invariant distribution of the fast process can be parameterized by a normalizing flow and learned solely from one observed slow trajectory by optimizing the penalized likelihood induced by the stochastically averaged reduced model, while a variational flow approximates the parameter posterior for uncertainty quantification.

What carries the argument

Normalizing flow parameterization of the invariant density of the fast variables, inserted into the stochastic averaging formula for the reduced slow-scale SDE.

If this is right

The reduced model can be learned from limited slow-only data while preserving the interaction between scales.
Uncertainty in the learned parameters can be quantified scalably via variational inference with a second flow.
The approach avoids both dense data requirements and grid-based PDE solvers common in Fokker-Planck methods.
The framework yields effective dynamics that respect the original stochastic structure rather than generic dimensionality reduction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same flow-based reduction could be tested on real observational time series from biology or climate where fast variables are inaccessible.
If the learned invariant distribution matches the true one, the method should reproduce both equilibrium and transient statistics of the slow variable at long times.
The penalized likelihood objective might be extended to include additional physical constraints such as conservation laws without changing the flow architecture.

Load-bearing premise

The invariant distribution of the fast process can be recovered to sufficient accuracy from statistics of the slow trajectory alone, without any direct observations of the fast variables.

What would settle it

Generate a known multiscale SDE system, observe only the slow trajectory, apply the method, then compare the long-term statistics or transition densities of the learned reduced model against independent long simulations of the original full system; large systematic mismatch would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09718 by Anan Saha, Arnab Ganguly.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Two-dimensional drift recovery for the two drift components. The first row shows recovery [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of the estimated drift and the averaged drift. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Law comparison at t = 1 and t = 1.5 for different numbers of sample paths L. Model :Variant of Double-well dynamics. Double-well example: We consider a slow–fast SDE system where the fast dynamics evolve with the invariant distribution given by a four-dimensional von Mises law. The slow component satisfies a nonlinear double-well type dynamics with drift b(x, y1, y2, y3, y4) = x − x 3 1 + x 2 + y 2 1 + sin… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Many systems in physics, engineering, and biology exhibit multiscale stochastic dynamics, where low-dimensional slow variables evolve under the influence of high-dimensional fast processes. In practice, observations are often limited to a single trajectory of the slow component, while the fast dynamics remain unobserved, making statistical learning challenging. Approaches based on partial differential equations (PDE), such as Fokker-Planck formulations, aim to characterize the evolution of probability densities, typically requiring dense space-time data or grid-based solvers. In contrast, we adopt a trajectory-based perspective and develop a data-driven framework for learning effective stochastic dynamics from a single observed path. We model the dynamics by coupled multiscale stochastic differential equations (SDEs) and first obtain a principled model reduction through stochastic averaging. Unlike generic model reduction techniques such as PCA, this respects the dynamical structure of the original system and explicitly incorporates the interaction between slow and fast scales. A central challenge, however, is that the reduced model depends on the invariant distribution of the fast process, which is a solution to an intractable and often unknown PDE. We introduce a novel learning framework that parameterizes the invariant distribution using normalizing flows, enabling expressive density modeling in the latent fast-variable space. The flow is trained end-to-end by optimizing a penalized likelihood objective induced by the reduced stochastic dynamics. Furthermore, we develop a Bayesian variational inference procedure for uncertainty quantification, employing a second normalizing flow to approximate the posterior distribution over model parameters. This yields a scalable approach to capturing epistemic uncertainty in multiscale systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper pairs stochastic averaging with normalizing flows to learn reduced multiscale SDEs from single slow trajectories, but the non-uniqueness of the invariant measure from the averaged likelihood is a genuine limit.

read the letter

The main advance is a trajectory-only method that reduces coupled multiscale SDEs via stochastic averaging and then uses a normalizing flow to stand in for the intractable invariant measure of the fast variables. The flow parameters are optimized directly against the likelihood of the observed slow path, with a second flow added for variational posterior approximation on the reduced-model parameters. This avoids grid-based PDE solvers and works from limited single-trajectory data, which is a practical step beyond generic reduction techniques like PCA. The end-to-end training and uncertainty quantification are cleanly motivated for systems where fast dynamics stay hidden. Credit is due for keeping the reduction structure explicit rather than treating the problem as black-box regression. The stress-test point holds up: the map from invariant measure to averaged drift and diffusion is not injective, so multiple flows can produce identical reduced dynamics and identical slow-trajectory likelihoods. Nothing in the abstract or high-level description shows how the method distinguishes the true measure from other measures that match the same averages. That leaves the central claim—that the flow learns the invariant distribution itself—under-supported by the data that is actually observed. Details on training stability, convergence rates, and concrete objective functions are also thin at this stage. The work is aimed at people who already use stochastic averaging or normalizing flows for dynamical systems in physics or biology. It is coherent enough on its own terms to deserve referee time, even though the identifiability gap will need direct attention in revision.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a data-driven framework for learning reduced stochastic models of multiscale systems from a single observed trajectory of the slow variables. Stochastic averaging yields an effective SDE whose drift and diffusion depend on the invariant measure of the fast process; this measure is parameterized by a normalizing flow in the latent fast-variable space. The flow is trained end-to-end by optimizing a penalized likelihood induced by the reduced dynamics, and a second normalizing flow is used within variational inference to quantify posterior uncertainty over the model parameters.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work would offer a scalable trajectory-based alternative to PDE-based methods for multiscale model reduction, allowing expressive density estimation of the fast-process invariant without direct observations or grid solvers. The end-to-end training and built-in uncertainty quantification via normalizing flows are notable strengths that could benefit applications in physics, biology, and engineering. The significance is reduced, however, by questions about whether the slow-scale likelihood can uniquely identify the invariant measure itself.

major comments (1)

Abstract (central claim on learning the invariant distribution): The penalized likelihood is induced solely by the stochastically averaged SDE, whose coefficients are expectations of fast-scale functions against the invariant measure μ(y|x). Because this averaging map is not injective, distinct measures can produce identical reduced drift/diffusion and therefore identical likelihood values on the observed slow trajectory. Consequently, optimizing the normalizing-flow parameters cannot guarantee recovery of the true invariant; it only selects some measure whose averages match the slow-scale fit. This directly undermines the claim that the flow 'parameterizes the invariant distribution' and learns it from slow data alone.

minor comments (2)

Abstract and method description: The specific form of the penalized likelihood objective, the manner in which expectations over the fast process are evaluated during training, and any regularization terms are only sketched at a high level; explicit equations would improve reproducibility and allow assessment of numerical stability.
Notation: The dependence of the reduced coefficients on the flow parameters is not denoted explicitly (e.g., as functions of the flow parameters θ), which obscures how gradients flow through the averaging step in the end-to-end training.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for identifying a key subtlety in the identifiability of the invariant measure. We have revised the manuscript to clarify the precise scope of our claims while preserving the core contribution of the end-to-end trajectory-based framework.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract (central claim on learning the invariant distribution): The penalized likelihood is induced solely by the stochastically averaged SDE, whose coefficients are expectations of fast-scale functions against the invariant measure μ(y|x). Because this averaging map is not injective, distinct measures can produce identical reduced drift/diffusion and therefore identical likelihood values on the observed slow trajectory. Consequently, optimizing the normalizing-flow parameters cannot guarantee recovery of the true invariant; it only selects some measure whose averages match the slow-scale fit. This directly undermines the claim that the flow 'parameterizes the invariant distribution' and learns it from slow data alone.

Authors: We agree that the stochastic averaging map is not injective in general, so the slow-scale likelihood does not uniquely identify the full invariant measure μ. The framework learns a normalizing-flow parameterization of a measure whose expectations against the relevant fast-scale functions reproduce the effective drift and diffusion coefficients consistent with the observed slow trajectory. This yields a useful reduced stochastic model even when the full density is not uniquely recoverable. We have revised the abstract, introduction, and discussion sections to state explicitly that the method recovers an effective invariant measure whose averages match the data, rather than claiming unique recovery of the true underlying distribution from slow data alone. Numerical experiments continue to show that the learned measure produces accurate reduced dynamics on the slow scale. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper starts from multiscale SDEs, applies stochastic averaging to derive a reduced model whose coefficients are expectations against the fast-process invariant measure, then parameterizes that measure via normalizing flows and optimizes a penalized likelihood on the observed slow trajectory. This is standard parameter estimation using external techniques (stochastic averaging and flow-based density estimation) rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted input renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. No equations or steps in the provided description reduce the claimed result to its inputs by construction. The central claim retains independent content from the data-driven training procedure.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach builds on established stochastic process theory and uses normalizing flows as a flexible density estimator without introducing new physical entities. Free parameters are the trainable weights of the flows and reduced SDE coefficients.

free parameters (2)

normalizing flow parameters
Learned end-to-end by optimizing the penalized likelihood objective induced by the reduced stochastic dynamics.
reduced SDE model parameters
Fitted jointly as part of the learning process from the observed trajectory.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The fast process possesses a well-defined invariant distribution
Required for stochastic averaging to produce a valid reduced model for the slow variables.
domain assumption Stochastic averaging yields an accurate effective dynamics description from the multiscale SDEs
Central to the principled model reduction step before flow parameterization.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5573 in / 1573 out tokens · 78973 ms · 2026-05-12T03:42:59.234900+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
We introduce a novel learning framework that parameterizes the invariant distribution using normalizing flows... The flow is trained end-to-end by optimizing a penalized likelihood objective induced by the reduced stochastic dynamics.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
the reduced model depends on the invariant distribution of the fast process... π₀ is the unique stationary distribution of A₁

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

Drift estimation of multiscale diffusions based on filtered data.Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 23(1):33–84, 2023

Assyr Abdulle, Giacomo Garegnani, Grigorios A Pavliotis, Andrew M Stuart, and Andrea Zanoni. Drift estimation of multiscale diffusions based on filtered data.Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 23(1):33–84, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

Closed-form likelihood expansions for multivariate diffusions.Ann

Yacine Aït-Sahalia. Closed-form likelihood expansions for multivariate diffusions.Ann. Statist., 36(2):906–937, 2008

work page 2008
[3]

Approximate inference for continuous-time Markov processes

Cédric Archambeau and Manfred Opper. Approximate inference for continuous-time Markov processes. InBayesian time series models, pages 125–140. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2011

work page 2011
[4]

Jaya P. N. Bishwal.Parameter estimation in stochastic volatility models. Springer, Cham, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Simple simulation of diffusion bridges with application to likelihood inference for diffusions.Bernoulli, 20(2):645–675, 2014

Mogens Bladt and Michael Sø rensen. Simple simulation of diffusion bridges with application to likelihood inference for diffusions.Bernoulli, 20(2):645–675, 2014

work page 2014
[6]

On the approximate maximum likelihood estimation for diffusion processes.Ann

Jinyuan Chang and Song Xi Chen. On the approximate maximum likelihood estimation for diffusion processes.Ann. Statist., 39(6):2820–2851, 2011

work page 2011
[7]

Approximate inference in latent gaussian-markov models from continuous time observations

Botond Cseke, Manfred Opper, and Guido Sanguinetti. Approximate inference in latent gaussian-markov models from continuous time observations. In C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, M. Welling, Z. Ghahramani, and K. Q. Weinberger, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26, pages 971–979. Curran Associates, Inc., 2013

work page 2013
[8]

Likelihood inference for discretely observed nonlinear diffusions.Econometrica, 69(4):959–993, 2001

Ola Elerian, Siddhartha Chib, and Neil Shephard. Likelihood inference for discretely observed nonlinear diffusions.Econometrica, 69(4):959–993, 2001

work page 2001
[9]

An analysis of noise propagation in the multiscale simulation of coarse fokker-planck equations.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 45(3):541–561, 2011

Yves Frederix, Giovanni Samaey, and Dirk Roose. An analysis of noise propagation in the multiscale simulation of coarse fokker-planck equations.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 45(3):541–561, 2011

work page 2011
[10]

Discrete-time statistical inference for multiscale diffusions.Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 16(4):1824–1858, 2018

Siragan Gailus and Konstantinos Spiliopoulos. Discrete-time statistical inference for multiscale diffusions.Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 16(4):1824–1858, 2018

work page 2018
[11]

Golightly and D

A. Golightly and D. J. Wilkinson. Bayesian inference for nonlinear multivariate diffusion models observed with error.Comput. Statist. Data Anal., 52(3):1674–1693, 2008

work page 2008
[12]

Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks.Neural networks, 4(2):251–257, 1991

Kurt Hornik. Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks.Neural networks, 4(2):251–257, 1991

work page 1991
[13]

Iacus.Simulation and inference for stochastic differential equations

Stefano M. Iacus.Simulation and inference for stochastic differential equations. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New York, 2008. With R examples

work page 2008
[14]

Estimation of an ergodic diffusion from discrete observations.Scand

Mathieu Kessler. Estimation of an ergodic diffusion from discrete observations.Scand. J. Statist., 24(2):211–229, 1997

work page 1997
[15]

Universal approximation with deep narrow networks

Patrick Kidger and Terry Lyons. Universal approximation with deep narrow networks. In Conference on learning theory, pages 2306–2327. PMLR, 2020

work page 2020
[16]

Maximum-likelihood estimation for diffusion processes via closed-form density expansions.Ann

Chenxu Li. Maximum-likelihood estimation for diffusion processes via closed-form density expansions.Ann. Statist., 41(3):1350–1380, 2013

work page 2013
[17]

Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and inference.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(57):1–64, 2021

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, 2021

work page 2021
[18]

Parameter estimation for multiscale diffusions: an overview.Statistical methods for stochastic differential equations, 124:429, 2012

Grigorios A Pavliotis, Yvo Pokern, and Andrew M Stuart. Parameter estimation for multiscale diffusions: an overview.Statistical methods for stochastic differential equations, 124:429, 2012

work page 2012
[19]

Parameter estimation for multiscale diffusions.Journal of Statistical Physics, 127(4):741–781, 2007

Grigorios A Pavliotis and AM Stuart. Parameter estimation for multiscale diffusions.Journal of Statistical Physics, 127(4):741–781, 2007

work page 2007
[20]

Pavliotis and Andrew M

Grigorios A. Pavliotis and Andrew M. Stuart.Multiscale methods, volume 53 ofTexts in Applied Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2008. Averaging and homogenization. 10

work page 2008
[21]

Numerical solution of the fokker– planck equation by finite difference and finite element methods—a comparative study

Lukas Pichler, Arif Masud, and Lawrence A Bergman. Numerical solution of the fokker– planck equation by finite difference and finite element methods—a comparative study. In Computational Methods in Stochastic Dynamics: Volume 2, pages 69–85. Springer, 2013

work page 2013
[22]

Variational inference with normalizing flows

Danilo Rezende and Shakir Mohamed. Variational inference with normalizing flows. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1530–1538. PMLR, 2015

work page 2015
[23]

G. O. Roberts and O. Stramer. On inference for partially observed nonlinear diffusion models using the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm.Biometrika, 88(3):603–621, 2001

work page 2001
[24]

Finite element approximation of stationary fokker–planck–kolmogorov equations with application to periodic numerical homogenization

Timo Sprekeler, Endre Süli, and Zhiwen Zhang. Finite element approximation of stationary fokker–planck–kolmogorov equations with application to periodic numerical homogenization. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 63(3):1315–1343, 2025

work page 2025
[25]

Springer, 2009

Cédric Villani et al.Optimal transport: old and new, volume 338. Springer, 2009

work page 2009
[26]

Whitaker, Andrew Golightly, Richard J

Gavin A. Whitaker, Andrew Golightly, Richard J. Boys, and Chris Sherlock. Bayesian inference for diffusion-driven mixed-effects models.Bayesian Anal., 12(2):435–463, 2017

work page 2017
[27]

On the capacity of deep generative networks for approximating distributions.Neural networks, 145:144–154, 2022

Yunfei Yang, Zhen Li, and Yang Wang. On the capacity of deep generative networks for approximating distributions.Neural networks, 145:144–154, 2022

work page 2022
[28]

Estimation for diffusion processes from discrete observation.J

Nakahiro Yoshida. Estimation for diffusion processes from discrete observation.J. Multivariate Anal., 41(2):220–242, 1992. A Theoretical details and results A.1 Stochastic averaging of fast-slow sde system Proof of Theorem 3.2.Notice thatY (n)(·) Law =Y(n·)whereYsatisfies the SDE: dY(t) =β Y(t) dt+α Y(t) d ˜W(t).(20) Fixp >1. By Itô’s lemma V p(Y(t)) =V p...

work page 1992
[29]

+y 4 4 . The cubic structure in the numerator induces a double-well behavior in the effective averaged dynamics, while the denominator introduces a highly nonlinear dependence on the fast variables. Experimental Design:Synthetic observations are generated by simulating the corresponding multiscale slow–fast SDE system using Euler–Maruyama discretization o...

work page