Low-Budget Simulation-Based Inference with Bayesian Neural Networks
Arnaud Delaunoy, Maxence de la Brassinne Bonardeaux, Siddharth, Mishra-Sharma, Gilles Louppe

TL;DR
This paper introduces a Bayesian neural network approach for simulation-based inference that remains accurate and well-calibrated even with very limited data, making it suitable for expensive simulations.
Contribution
It develops a new family of Bayesian neural network priors tailored for inference, enabling reliable posterior estimation with as few as 10 simulations.
Findings
Well-calibrated posteriors with as few as 10 simulations
Effective in cosmology with expensive single simulations
Produces informative posterior estimates with limited data
Abstract
Simulation-based inference methods have been shown to be inaccurate in the data-poor regime, when training simulations are limited or expensive. Under these circumstances, the inference network is particularly prone to overfitting, and using it without accounting for the computational uncertainty arising from the lack of identifiability of the network weights can lead to unreliable results. To address this issue, we propose using Bayesian neural networks in low-budget simulation-based inference, thereby explicitly accounting for the computational uncertainty of the posterior approximation. We design a family of Bayesian neural network priors that are tailored for inference and show that they lead to well-calibrated posteriors on tested benchmarks, even when as few as simulations are available. This opens up the possibility of performing reliable simulation-based inference using…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2025
### Originality The idea of using BNN for SBI is not new (as discussed in the paper). However, showing why previous approaches did not work so well and the proposal of a new type of BNN prior more suitable for the SBI setting is a valuable contribution. Most of the previous work on better uncertainty quantification in SBI is discussed adequately in the introduction. The only paper with a related approach that seems to be missing in the discussion is [Lueckmann et al. 2017, section 2.2](https://
I outlined several concerns and questions above. To summarize to most important points: - the experimental results are difficult to interpret because they show the media of only three repetitions. More repetitions and error bars would be better here. - the high underconfidence of the BNN approach in how-data regimes is concerning. Additional evaluation of the posterior predictive distributions would be appropriate. - the choice and construction of the prior from simulated should be explaine
- The paper proposes a novel contribution for simulation-based inference. The method is in my opinion very relevant to the community and interesting as a low-budget solution for inferential problems. - The motivation and derivation of the tailored prior is in my opinion particularly well done and convincing. - Empirically, the method seems to achieve the motivated goal: having calibrated posteriors for low simulation budgets. - The paper is well written and easy to follow.
The evaluations and presentations of the results could in my opinion be improved. - The authors evaluate their method with the expected coverage (EC). In Figure 2, it is in my opinion very difficult to draw conclusions which methods works best. This is likely due to the fact that only 3 runs have been evaluated. Given the complexity of SBI and the high variance of the inferential results, I think they should do at least 10 evaluations and report these. - The authors use as a second evaluation m
The idea to generate neural network weight priors which lead to a-priori well-calibrated posteriors is novel, interesting, and potentially impactful. The methodology which the authors employ to achieve this is novel, elegant, and rigorous. I thoroughly enjoyed reading these parts of the paper. In addition, the authors demonstrate that the method can be applied across methods (NPE & NRE) and they evaluate the method on a series of useful tasks.
(1) The paper overstates its claims. My main issue with this paper is that it overstates its claims and does not acknowledge the weakness of empirical results. Looking at Figure 2, and in particular for NRE: BNN-NRE _never_ reaches the log posterior of the other methods (even for 1M simulations). Yet the authors state that `the nominal log posterior density is on par with other methods for very high simulation budgets`. Where does this claim come from. Similarly, in Figure 2 (NRE), the authors d
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsSimulation Techniques and Applications · Machine Learning in Healthcare
