aiqbench analysis
PosteriorBench introduces a critical evaluation framework for generative models solving scientific inverse problems, shifting focus from single-point accuracy to the full distributional fidelity of solutions. By benchmarking against high-fidelity reference posteriors across physics-based tasks like Darcy flow and carbon capture, it exposes common failure modes such as mode collapse and overconfident uncertainty in ill-posed scenarios. This work provides essential metrics for researchers developing neural operators and generative solvers to ensure robust uncertainty quantification in real-world scientific applications.
PosteriorBench: From Point Estimates to Posterior Matching in Evaluating Generative Inverse Solvers
arXiv:2609.20794v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative models are increasingly used to solve scientific inverse problems, but existing evaluations still focus primarily on whether a method can produce a single plausible reconstruction. This is insufficient for ill-posed problems, where multiple solutions may be consistent with the same sparse or noisy observations. In these settings, a method can achieve strong pointwise accuracy while still failing to capture the true posterior through mode collapse, overconfident uncertainty, or averaging incompatible solutions. We introduce PosteriorBench, a benchmark for evaluating the distributional accuracy of generative inverse solvers. PosteriorBench evaluates four physics-based inverse problems: Darcy flow inversion, Poisson source recovery, carbon capture and storage, and light transport material inference. For each task, we construct high-fidelity reference posteriors using computationally heavy but established procedures such as rejection sampling and Markov chain Monte Carlo, enabling direct assessment of whether solvers recover the full set of solutions rather than the single best sample. We pair these references with a five-metric posterior evaluation suite: posterior-mean error, posterior-standard-deviation error, maximum mean discrepancy, sliced Wasserstein distance, and radially averaged power-spectrum error. These metrics assess pointwise accuracy, marginal uncertainty, distributional alignment, and global frequency fidelity. The benchmark spans sparse sensing, low-resolution observations, nonlinear forward models, varying noise levels, and multimodal priors, with a unified pipeline for distribution matching and uncertainty quantification. Our experiments reveal substantial distribution-matching gaps across current solvers, while showing that neural operators improve resolution robustness, and guidance weights and generation noise are key to posterior-variance calibration.
Abstract:Generative models are increasingly used to solve scientific inverse problems, but existing evaluations still focus primarily on whether a method can produce a single plausible reconstruction. This is insufficient for ill-posed problems, where multiple solutions may be consistent with the same sparse or noisy observations. In these settings, a method can achieve strong pointwise accuracy while still failing to capture the true posterior through mode collapse, overconfident uncertainty, or averaging incompatible solutions. We introduce PosteriorBench, a benchmark for evaluating the distributional accuracy of generative inverse solvers. PosteriorBench evaluates four physics-based inverse problems: Darcy flow inversion, Poisson source recovery, carbon capture and storage, and light transport material inference. For each task, we construct high-fidelity reference posteriors using computationally heavy but established procedures such as rejection sampling and Markov chain Monte Carlo, enabling direct assessment of whether solvers recover the full set of solutions rather than the single best sample. We pair these references with a five-metric posterior evaluation suite: posterior-mean error, posterior-standard-deviation error, maximum mean discrepancy, sliced Wasserstein distance, and radially averaged power-spectrum error. These metrics assess pointwise accuracy, marginal uncertainty, distributional alignment, and global frequency fidelity. The benchmark spans sparse sensing, low-resolution observations, nonlinear forward models, varying noise levels, and multimodal priors, with a unified pipeline for distribution matching and uncertainty quantification. Our experiments reveal substantial distribution-matching gaps across current solvers, while showing that neural operators improve resolution robustness, and guidance weights and generation noise are key to posterior-variance calibration.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE)
arXiv:2609.20794 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.20794v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.20794 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 340 words
Related coverage
Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 6, 2026
Constrained Diffusion for Data-Scarce Orbital Monte Carlo in Constellation Tasking
arXiv · Oct 8, 2026
[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Oct 3, 2026
[AINews] Opus 5.5 is good at explainer videos
Latent Space · Sep 29, 2026