Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Improving Decoupled Posterior Sampling for Inverse Problems using Data Consistency Constraint

T0 review · 4 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 Adding a data-consistency gradient step to the reverse process of decoupled posterior sampling improves reconstruction accuracy on linear and nonlinear inverse problems.

desk verdict A simple, plausibly useful plug-in guidance step for decoupled posterior sampling, with consistent but modest empirical gains and a real need for variance reporting and analysis of the guidance mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00664 v2 pith:EALUL56K submitted 2024-12-01 cs.LG cs.CVstat.ML

Zhi Qi , Shihong Yuan , Yulin Yuan , Linling Kuang , Yoshiyuki Kabashima , Xiangming Meng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CVstat.ML
keywords inverseproblemsdiffusionmodelsposteriorsamplingdecoupleddataconsistencyimagerestorationphaseretrievallatent
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

Decoupled posterior sampling methods for inverse problems separate denoising, optimization, and renoising, and they suffer because the denoising step ignores the measurement. This paper proposes Guided Decoupled Posterior Sampling (GDPS), which inserts a single gradient-descent step on the squared data-consistency loss, $\|y - A(x_t)\|^2$, after each reverse-process ODE step. The guided state is then fed to the Langevin optimization stage, so the reconstruction starts from a measurement-aware point. The paper reports that this modification improves PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS over DAPS and other baselines on FFHQ and ImageNet across linear and nonlinear tasks, and that the same step improves LatentDAPS and SITCOM when applied in latent space or through Tweedie's formula.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the guided reverse update $x_t^{\text{guided}} = x_t - \gamma \nabla_{x_t}\|y - A(x_t)\|^2$, a single gradient-descent step on the squared data-consistency loss applied after each probability-flow ODE step. In latent diffusion models the step is taken in latent space through the decoder, $z_t^{\text{guided}} = z_t - \gamma \nabla_{z_t}\|y - A(D(z_t))\|^2$; in Tweedie-based sampling it is applied to the estimated clean image, $\hat{x}_0^{\text{guided}} = \hat{x}_0 - \gamma \nabla_{\hat{x}_0}\|y - A(\hat{x}_0)\|^2$. This gradient term is what carries measurement information into the reverse process, while the scalar $\gamma$ controls how strongly the state is pulled toward consistency.

What would settle it

Take a fixed inverse problem and compare GDPS with an ablation that applies the gradient step only after the first half of the reverse steps, keeping $\gamma$ fixed. If the ablated version matches GDPS in PSNR and LPIPS, then the guidance on nearly pure-noise samples carries no useful information, contradicting the paper's picture of a smooth, measurement-guided transition. A complementary check is to run both methods at a measurement noise level well above $\sigma = 0.05$, such as $\sigma = 0.2$, and see whether the GDPS advantage shrinks or vanishes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the reverse process of decoupled posterior sampling should not be run blind to the measurement. The paper's update, $x_t^{\text{guided}} = x_t - \gamma \nabla_{x_t}\|y - A(x_t)\|^2$, is applied after each inner ODE step in Algorithm 1, and this one-line change is enough to make the optimization stage start from a state already pulled toward data consistency. On the tested tasks, including super-resolution, inpainting, deblurring, phase retrieval, nonlinear deblurring, and high dynamic range, with measurement noise $\sigma = 0.05$, GDPS reports the best PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS among the compared methods on both FFHQ 256x256 and ImageNet 256x256, and the improvement persists on harder versions of those tasks. The paper also claims the guidance transfers: G-LatentDAPS and G-SITCOM outperform their base methods.

Load-bearing premise

The benefit rests on the assumption that the gradient of $\|y - A(x_t)\|^2$ with respect to the noisy sample $x_t$ points toward a measurement-consistent reconstruction. At early reverse steps, where $x_t$ is close to pure noise, that gradient may be dominated by noise rather than by signal, and the paper does not analyze how the guidance interacts with the probability-flow ODE or how $\gamma$ should scale with the noise level.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, any decoupled posterior sampling method can be improved by adding the data-consistency gradient to its reverse process, without changing its optimization or forward processes.
  • The improvement should appear on both linear and nonlinear forward operators, because the gradient is computed directly from $A$, not from a linearized adjoint.
  • The gains should hold under harder measurement regimes, including 16x super-resolution, heavy masking, and phase retrieval with low oversampling.
  • The guidance step adds only a few seconds per image relative to DAPS, so the accuracy gain does not require a large computational cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One editorial extension is that $\gamma$, currently hand-set per task, could be made noise-adaptive: a schedule $\gamma(\sigma_t)$ that shrinks as the sample becomes cleaner would likely remove the per-task tuning shown in the appendix.
  • Another extension is to read the guidance step as a lightweight measurement-conditional perturbation of the probability-flow ODE; that reading suggests testing it with other ODE solvers, such as higher-order or few-step samplers, to see whether the benefit survives when the reverse trajectory is shorter.
  • Because the guidance is computed on noisy samples, its behavior at very high noise levels is the most likely failure mode; an ablation that applies the gradient only after the sample has been substantially denoised would isolate where the gain actually comes from.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Guided Decoupled Posterior Sampling (GDPS), a modification of decoupled posterior sampling methods such as DAPS. The only algorithmic change is an extra gradient-descent step in the reverse process, x_t^guided = x_t - gamma * grad_{x_t} ||y - A(x_t)||^2 (Eq. (6), Algorithm 1 line 4), intended to inject measurement information before the Langevin optimization stage. The guidance step is also adapted to latent diffusion models (G-LatentDAPS) and to SITCOM's Tweedie-based update (G-SITCOM). The paper reports PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS on 100-image FFHQ and ImageNet validation sets across five linear and three nonlinear inverse problems, plus four challenging settings, and claims consistent state-of-the-art improvements over DAPS, LatentDAPS, SITCOM, Resample, PSLD, and DPS.

Significance. If the empirical gains are robust, GDPS is a simple, nearly cost-free plug-in enhancement to a popular family of diffusion-based inverse problem solvers, and the latent and Tweedie extensions broaden its applicability. The paper's strengths are its breadth of experiments: two datasets, linear and nonlinear operators, challenging regimes, and two additional base methods, with running time comparable to DAPS (Appendix B). The central limitation is that the proposed mechanism is not analyzed: the gradient is applied to the noisy intermediate sample, gamma is hand-tuned per task over a 100x range, and no variance or significance information is given for the reported improvements. The consistent gains are suggestive but the explanatory claim of a 'smoother transition' remains unquantified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (6) and Algorithm 1 line 4] The data-consistency gradient is evaluated at the noisy sample x_t rather than at a clean estimate of x0. For a linear forward operator, writing x_t = x0 + sigma_t * epsilon gives grad_{x_t} ||y - A(x_t)||^2 = -2A^T(y - A x0) + 2 sigma_t A^T A epsilon. At large sigma_t the noise-dependent term dominates, so the step is not obviously reducing ||y - A(x0)||^2; it may only damp components of the noise in range(A^T A). The paper provides no analysis of how this update interacts with the probability-flow ODE, no scaling law for gamma in sigma_t, and no noise-level ablation. This is load-bearing because the abstract and Section 3.2 claim that the constraint provides a 'smoother transition' toward the target distribution. I would like to see either an analysis of the update in the high-noise regime or an experiment that reports the contribution of the guidance step as a function of noise level, e.g., by applying the update only above a threshold sigma_t or by re-scaling gamma with sigma_t.
  2. [Appendix C, Tables 11 and 12] The step size gamma is selected separately for every task and every variant, with values ranging from 0.1 to 10 (a 100x range). No sensitivity analysis is reported, and no principled selection rule is given. Since gamma is the only new hyperparameter of the method, the consistent end-to-end gains could in principle come from favorable per-task tuning rather than from the proposed mechanism. I request a sensitivity study for Table 1 with respect to gamma (at least for two or three tasks), or a data-driven schedule for gamma that does not require per-task hand-tuning.
  3. [Tables 1-6 and 8-9] All metrics are reported as single-point estimates over 100 images, with no error bars, standard deviations, or paired significance tests. Many of the reported advantages are small, for example Table 4 phase retrieval PSNR 22.72 vs 22.17 and SSIM 0.580 vs 0.577, and Table 8 HDR PSNR 24.82 for both LatentDAPS and G-LatentDAPS. To support the claim that GDPS 'consistently' outperforms the baselines, the authors should report variance across random seeds or per-image paired statistics (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank tests) for at least the main tables.
  4. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The claimed 'smoother transition' and 'more effective convergence toward the target distribution' are not quantified anywhere in the paper. There is no trajectory analysis, no plot of the data-consistency loss over the reverse process, and no comparison of the guided and unguided reverse trajectories. This is a presentation issue for the main claimed mechanism, and it should be either substantiated with a quantitative diagnostic or softened to a qualitative observation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 3] The update line has a missing closing parenthesis: 's_theta(x_{t_k}, sigma(t_k) Delta t' should read 's_theta(x_{t_k}, sigma(t_k)) Delta t'.
  2. [Figure captions] Several captions (Figures 3-6, 7-11) contain the typo 'taks' instead of 'tasks'.
  3. [Section 3.3 and Algorithm 3] For G-SITCOM the guidance is applied to the clean Tweedie estimate (denoted by a hat), whereas Eq. (6) applies it to the noisy x_t. The paper should state explicitly that the guidance acts on different objects in the pixel/latent/Tweedie variants, since the claimed mechanism is not identical across extensions.
  4. [Equation (11)] The displayed definition of F(x,y) is garbled in the text and should be reformatted for readability.
  5. [Reference [29]] Reference [29] gives incomplete page information ('pages 681-') and should be completed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GDPS is an empirical heuristic modification evaluated against external baselines; the per-task step size is a hyperparameter, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is an algorithmic modification: adding the gradient step x_guided_t = x_t - gamma * grad_{x_t} ||y - A(x_t)||^2 (Eq. 6, Algorithm 1 line 4) to the reverse process of decoupled posterior sampling. This is presented as a heuristic data-consistency correction, not as a quantity derived from first principles, so there is no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs. The empirical claim is tested against fixed external benchmarks (FFHQ and ImageNet) and multiple baselines using PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS, which are not identical to the data-consistency objective being minimized. The per-task step sizes gamma reported in Appendix C are tuned hyperparameters, not fitted parameters that are then renamed as predictions. The self-citations (references [13] and [32]) appear only in bibliographic lists of related work and are not load-bearing for the proposed method. The main scientific risk is external validity of the hand-tuned gamma across noise levels, but that is a robustness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its main dependency is the heuristic gradient-guidance assumption, plus the inherited score-model and Gaussian posterior assumptions from diffusion and decoupled sampling. The per-task step size gamma is the principal free parameter.

free parameters (3)
  • guidance step size gamma = e.g., 2.0 (SR), 10.0 (Gaussian deblur), 7.0 (phase retrieval)
    Hand-tuned per task in Appendix C (Tables 11-12); central to GDPS and directly affects reconstruction quality.
  • number of reverse steps n = 5 or 10 depending on task
    Selected per task in Appendix C.2; the reverse process granularity affects the number of guidance applications.
  • number of noisy sample steps N = 200 or 400 depending on task
    Selected per task in Appendix C.2; controls the overall sampling trajectory length.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The diffusion score model approximates the true score function well enough for the reverse process to denoise effectively.
    Standard assumption in all diffusion-based inverse problem methods; the paper inherits pre-trained models and does not verify the score quality.
  • ad hoc to paper Gradient descent on ||y - A(x_t)||^2 at noise level t steers x_t toward the data-consistent manifold without destroying the denoising trajectory.
    This is the core heuristic of GDPS (Eq. 6). No analysis is provided for how the gradient interacts with the ODE solve at different noise levels or for non-linear operators A.
  • domain assumption The posterior p(x0 | xt, y) is Gaussian with mean x_hat_0(xt) and covariance r_t^2 I (Eq. 4), inherited from DAPS.
    Used in the Langevin optimization step; this Gaussian approximation is taken from prior decoupled sampling work without new justification.
  • domain assumption The forward measurement noise is Gaussian with covariance beta_t^2 I.
    Standard noise model used in the Langevin objective; assumed throughout the inverse problem literature the paper builds on.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving Decoupled Posterior Sampling for Inverse Problems using Data Consistency Constraint." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EALUL56K

@misc{pith2026241200664,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving Decoupled Posterior Sampling for Inverse Problems using Data Consistency Constraint},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EALUL56K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00664}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion models have shown strong performances in solving inverse problems through posterior sampling while they suffer from errors during earlier steps. To mitigate this issue, several Decoupled Posterior Sampling methods have been recently proposed. However, the reverse process in these methods ignores measurement information, leading to errors that impede effective optimization in subsequent steps. To solve this problem, we propose Guided Decoupled Posterior Sampling (GDPS) by integrating a data consistency constraint in the reverse process. The constraint performs a smoother transition within the optimization process, facilitating a more effective convergence toward the target distribution. Furthermore, we extend our method to latent diffusion models and Tweedie's formula, demonstrating its scalability. We evaluate GDPS on the FFHQ and ImageNet datasets across various linear and nonlinear tasks under both standard and challenging conditions. Experimental results demonstrate that GDPS achieves state-of-the-art performance, improving accuracy over existing methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00664 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representative Results for the DPS, DAPS, and GDPS Methods. The tasks are presented in the following [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrative Diagram of Our Method GDPS. As shown in the figure, we begin by sending the input xt into the guided reverse process. In this process, we introduce a guidance term to optimize xtk into x guided tk , progressively moving towards a clear sample, xˆ0(xt). In the optimization process, we apply Langevin dynamics to sample x0|y from the posterior distribution p(x0 | xt, y) based on xˆ0(xt). Finally, in the fo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Representative results from the experiments in the validation set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Representative results from the experiments in the validation set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative results from the challenging experiments in the validation set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representative results from the experiments in the validation set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: More results from the experiments in the validation set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: More results from the experiments in the validation set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: More results from the experiments in the validation set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: More results from the experiments in the validation set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: More results from the experiments in the validation set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A statistical perspective on ill-posed inverse problems

    Finbarr O’Sullivan. A statistical perspective on ill-posed inverse problems. Statistical science, pages 502–518,

    work page

  2. [2]

    Candès, Justin Romberg, and Terence Tao

    Emmanuel J. Candès, Justin Romberg, and Terence Tao. Robust uncertainty principles: Exact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 52(2):489–509, 2006. IEEE

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Candès and Michael B

    Emmanuel J. Candès and Michael B. Wakin. An introduction to compressive sampling. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 25(2):21–30, 2008. IEEE

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Compressed sensing and robust recovery of low rank matrices

    Maryam Fazel, Emmanuel Candès, Ben Recht, and Pablo Parrilo. Compressed sensing and robust recovery of low rank matrices. In 2008 42nd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers , pages 1043–1047, 2008. IEEE

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Corrupted sensing: Novel guarantees for separating structured signals

    Rina Foygel and Lester Mackey. Corrupted sensing: Novel guarantees for separating structured signals. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60(2):1223–1247, 2014. IEEE

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Nett, and Guang-Hong Chen

    Jie Tang, Brian E. Nett, and Guang-Hong Chen. Performance comparison between total variation (TV)-based compressed sensing and statistical iterative reconstruction algorithms. Physics in Medicine & Biology , 54(19):5781,

    work page

  7. [7]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Alexander Quinn Nichol and Prafulla Dhariwal. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8162–8171, 2021. PMLR

    work page 2021

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Improved techniques for training score-based generative models

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Improved techniques for training score-based generative models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:12438–12448, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Diffusion models beat GANs on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. Diffusion models beat GANs on image synthesis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:8780–8794, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 2256–2265, 2015. PMLR

    2015

  5. [13]

    Quantized compressed sensing with score-based generative models

    Xiangming Meng and Yoshiyuki Kabashima. Quantized compressed sensing with score-based generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13006, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    McCann, Marc L

    Hyungjin Chung, Jeongsol Kim, Michael T. McCann, Marc L. Klasky, and Jong Chul Ye. Diffusion posterior sampling for general noisy inverse problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14687, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Improving diffusion models for inverse problems using manifold constraints

    Hyungjin Chung, Byeongsu Sim, Dohoon Ryu, and Jong Chul Ye. Improving diffusion models for inverse problems using manifold constraints. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:25683–25696, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Dimakis, and Jon Tamir

    Ajil Jalal, Marius Arvinte, Giannis Daras, Eric Price, Alexandros G. Dimakis, and Jon Tamir. Robust compressed sensing MRI with deep generative priors. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:14938–14954, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Dimakis, and Eric Price

    Ajil Jalal, Sushrut Karmalkar, Alexandros G. Dimakis, and Eric Price. Instance-optimal compressed sensing via posterior sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11438, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Denoising diffusion restoration models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:23593–23606, 2022

    Bahjat Kawar, Michael Elad, Stefano Ermon, and Jiaming Song. Denoising diffusion restoration models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:23593–23606, 2022. 10

    2022

  11. [19]

    SNIPS: Solving noisy inverse problems stochastically

    Bahjat Kawar, Gregory Vaksman, and Michael Elad. SNIPS: Solving noisy inverse problems stochastically. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:21757–21769, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Pseudoinverse-guided diffusion models for inverse problems

    Jiaming Song, Arash Vahdat, Morteza Mardani, and Jan Kautz. Pseudoinverse-guided diffusion models for inverse problems. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    DMPlug: A Plug-in Method for Solving Inverse Problems with Diffusion Models

    Hengkang Wang, Xu Zhang, Taihui Li, Yuxiang Wan, Tiancong Chen, and Ju Sun. DMPlug: A Plug-in Method for Solving Inverse Problems with Diffusion Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16749, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Improving diffusion inverse problem solving with decoupled noise annealing

    Bingliang Zhang, Wenda Chu, Julius Berner, Chenlin Meng, Anima Anandkumar, and Yang Song. Improving diffusion inverse problem solving with decoupled noise annealing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01521, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Alkhouri, Saiprasad Ravishankar, and Qing Qu

    Xiang Li, Soo Min Kwon, Ismail R. Alkhouri, Saiprasad Ravishankar, and Qing Qu. Decoupled data consistency with diffusion purification for image restoration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06054, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    SITCOM: Step-wise Triple-Consistent Diffusion Sampling for Inverse Problems

    Ismail Alkhouri, Shijun Liang, Cheng-Han Huang, Jimmy Dai, Qing Qu, Saiprasad Ravishankar, and Ron- grong Wang. SITCOM: Step-wise Triple-Consistent Diffusion Sampling for Inverse Problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04479, 2024

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:26565–26577, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow

    Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, and Qiang Liu. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03003, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Consistency flow matching: Defining straight flows with velocity consistency

    Ling Yang, Zixiang Zhang, Zhilong Zhang, Xingchao Liu, Minkai Xu, Wentao Zhang, Chenlin Meng, Stefano Ermon, and Bin Cui. Consistency flow matching: Defining straight flows with velocity consistency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02398, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Tweedie moment projected diffusions for inverse problems

    Benjamin Boys, Mark Girolami, Jakiw Pidstrigach, Sebastian Reich, Alan Mosca, and O Deniz Akyildiz. Tweedie moment projected diffusions for inverse problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06721, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Max Welling and Yee W. Teh. Bayesian learning via stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-11) , pages 681–

  22. [30]

    Diederik P. Kingma. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A stochastic approximation method

    Herbert Robbins and Sutton Monro. A stochastic approximation method. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , pages 400–407, 1951

    1951

  24. [32]

    Diffusion model based posterior sampling for noisy linear inverse problems

    Xiangming Meng and Yoshiyuki Kabashima. Diffusion model based posterior sampling for noisy linear inverse problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12343, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Prompt-tuning latent diffusion models for inverse problems

    Hyungjin Chung, Jong Chul Ye, Peyman Milanfar, and Mauricio Delbracio. Prompt-tuning latent diffusion models for inverse problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01110, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Solving linear inverse problems provably via posterior sampling with latent diffusion models

    Litu Rout, Negin Raoof, Giannis Daras, Constantine Caramanis, Alex Dimakis, and Sanjay Shakkottai. Solving linear inverse problems provably via posterior sampling with latent diffusion models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Solving inverse problems with latent diffusion models via hard data consistency

    Bowen Song, Soo Min Kwon, Zecheng Zhang, Xinyu Hu, Qing Qu, and Liyue Shen. Solving inverse problems with latent diffusion models via hard data consistency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08123, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4401–4410, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 248–255, 2009

    2009

  30. [38]

    Decomposed diffusion sampler for accelerating large-scale inverse problems

    Hyungjin Chung, Suhyeon Lee, and Jong Chul Ye. Decomposed diffusion sampler for accelerating large-scale inverse problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05754, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Denoising diffusion models for plug-and-play image restoration

    Yuanzhi Zhu, Kai Zhang, Jingyun Liang, Jiezhang Cao, Bihan Wen, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Denoising diffusion models for plug-and-play image restoration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1219–1229, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Beyond first-order Tweedie: Solving inverse problems using latent diffusion

    Litu Rout, Yujia Chen, Abhishek Kumar, Constantine Caramanis, Sanjay Shakkottai, and Wen-Sheng Chu. Beyond first-order Tweedie: Solving inverse problems using latent diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9472–9481, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Diffusion posterior sampling for linear inverse problem solving: A filtering perspective

    Zehao Dou and Yang Song. Diffusion posterior sampling for linear inverse problem solving: A filtering perspective. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024. 11

    2024

  34. [42]

    Zihui Wu, Yu Sun, Yifan Chen, Bingliang Zhang, Yisong Yue, and Katherine L. Bouman. Principled probabilistic imaging using diffusion models as plug-and-play priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18782, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Feng, and Katherine L

    Yu Sun, Zihui Wu, Yifan Chen, Berthy T. Feng, and Katherine L. Bouman. Provable probabilistic imaging using score-based generative priors. IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Monte Carlo guided denoising diffusion models for Bayesian linear inverse problems

    Gabriel Cardoso, Sylvain Le Corff, Eric Moulines, and others. Monte Carlo guided denoising diffusion models for Bayesian linear inverse problems. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Noise2score: Tweedie’s approach to self-supervised image denoising without clean images

    Kwanyoung Kim and Jong Chul Ye. Noise2score: Tweedie’s approach to self-supervised image denoising without clean images. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 34, pages 864–874, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Tweedie’s formula and selection bias

    Bradley Efron. Tweedie’s formula and selection bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume 106, number 496, pages 1602–1614, 2011

    2011

  39. [47]

    Explore image deblurring via encoded blur kernel space

    Phong Tran, Anh Tuan Tran, Quynh Phung, and Minh Hoai. Explore image deblurring via encoded blur kernel space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 11956–11965, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A. Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 586–595, 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Bovik, Hamid R

    Zhou Wang, Alan C. Bovik, Hamid R. Sheikh, and Eero P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, volume 13, number 4, pages 600–612, 2004

    2004

  43. [51]

    Direct diffusion bridge using data consistency for inverse problems

    Hyungjin Chung, Jeongsol Kim, and Jong Chul Ye. Direct diffusion bridge using data consistency for inverse problems. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 36, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Diffusion-based adversarial purification for robust deep MRI reconstruction

    Ismail Alkhouri, Shijun Liang, Rongrong Wang, Qing Qu, and Saiprasad Ravishankar. Diffusion-based adversarial purification for robust deep MRI reconstruction. InICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pages 12841–12845, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Inverse problems in atmospheric science and their application

    Sixun Huang, Jie Xiang, Huadong Du, and Xiaoqun Cao. Inverse problems in atmospheric science and their application. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series , volume 12, number 1, pages 45, 2005

    2005

  46. [54]

    Gibbsddrm: A partially collapsed Gibbs sampler for solving blind inverse problems with denoising diffusion restoration

    Naoki Murata, Koichi Saito, Chieh-Hsin Lai, Yuhta Takida, Toshimitsu Uesaka, Yuki Mitsufuji, and Stefano Ermon. Gibbsddrm: A partially collapsed Gibbs sampler for solving blind inverse problems with denoising diffusion restoration. In International Conference on Machine Learni...

    2023

  47. [55]

    Learning Diffusion Priors from Observations by Expectation Maximization

    François Rozet, Gérôme Andry, François Lanusse, and Gilles Louppe. Learning Diffusion Priors from Observations by Expectation Maximization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13712, 2024. 12 A Extension to Latent DMs and SITCOM As discussed in the main paper, our method can be extended...

    2024

Pith tools

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