aiqbench analysis
This research addresses a critical limitation in Bayesian inverse problems where standard generative models fail to capture multimodal posterior variability, often resulting in undercoverage or distorted solutions. The proposed joint twist-flow method introduces an augmented transport framework that couples samples to observation consistency while preserving uncertainty in weakly constrained directions. Validated on tasks ranging from image restoration to seismic inversion, the approach successfully maintains plausible solution diversity without sacrificing data fidelity.
Twist Flow for Inverse Problems
arXiv:2610.09281v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In Bayesian inverse problems, posterior sampling requires generating samples that are consistent with given observations while capturing the range of plausible solutions. Direct conditional generative models introduce latent noise to model this ambiguity, but paired inverse-problem training can still encourage an almost deterministic map from the observation to the target. As a result, generated samples may be observation-consistent while under-representing posterior variability, especially when the posterior is multimodal, leading to undercoverage, mode distortion, or artificial transitions between distinct feasible solutions. We propose joint twist-flow, an augmented flow-matching formulation that learns a continuous transport from the augmented source state $(z_x, y)$ to the augmented terminal state $(x, z_y)$. Here x is the target variable, $y$ is the observation, $z_x$ is the Gaussian reference coordinate for posterior sampling, and $z_y$ is a Gaussian likelihood-side coordinate associated with the observation branch. Under a Gaussian observation model, $z_y$ is motivated by the normalized observation residual associated with observation compatibility. Its role is not to replace uncertainty in $x$, but to couple generated samples of x to observation consistency, helping reduce likelihood-inconsistent variation while preserving variability in weakly constrained directions. We validate the method on low-dimensional inverse problems with reference posterior samples, where joint twist-flow better preserves multimodal posterior support than a direct conditional-flow baseline. We further evaluate the method on image restoration and seismic subsurface velocity-model inversion, showing increased posterior variability while maintaining observation consistency.
Abstract:In Bayesian inverse problems, posterior sampling requires generating samples that are consistent with given observations while capturing the range of plausible solutions. Direct conditional generative models introduce latent noise to model this ambiguity, but paired inverse-problem training can still encourage an almost deterministic map from the observation to the target. As a result, generated samples may be observation-consistent while under-representing posterior variability, especially when the posterior is multimodal, leading to undercoverage, mode distortion, or artificial transitions between distinct feasible solutions. We propose joint twist-flow, an augmented flow-matching formulation that learns a continuous transport from the augmented source state $(z_x, y)$ to the augmented terminal state $(x, z_y)$. Here x is the target variable, $y$ is the observation, $z_x$ is the Gaussian reference coordinate for posterior sampling, and $z_y$ is a Gaussian likelihood-side coordinate associated with the observation branch. Under a Gaussian observation model, $z_y$ is motivated by the normalized observation residual associated with observation compatibility. Its role is not to replace uncertainty in $x$, but to couple generated samples of x to observation consistency, helping reduce likelihood-inconsistent variation while preserving variability in weakly constrained directions. We validate the method on low-dimensional inverse problems with reference posterior samples, where joint twist-flow better preserves multimodal posterior support than a direct conditional-flow baseline. We further evaluate the method on image restoration and seismic subsurface velocity-model inversion, showing increased posterior variability while maintaining observation consistency.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Geophysics (physics.geo-ph)
arXiv:2610.09281 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.09281v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.09281 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 · 327 words
Related coverage
BridgeTwist: Twisting Schr\"odinger Bridges for Training-Free Conditional Sampling
arXiv · Oct 14, 2026
OpenAI Model Solves One of Seven Millennium Prize Problems
news.mail.ru · Sep 9, 2026
Solving Inverse Problems with Flow-based Models via Model Predictive Control
arXiv · Jun 9, 2026
Trajectory Stitching for Solving Inverse Problems with Flow-Based Models
arXiv · Oct 2, 2026