Variational Diffusion Posterior Sampling with Midpoint Guidance
Badr Moufad, Yazid Janati, Lisa Bedin, Alain Durmus, Randal Douc, Eric, Moulines, Jimmy Olsson

TL;DR
This paper introduces a new method for sampling from complex Bayesian posterior distributions using diffusion models, improving efficiency and accuracy in inverse problems including medical diagnostics.
Contribution
It proposes a novel transition decomposition that balances the complexity of guidance and prior terms, enhancing sampling from intractable posteriors in diffusion models.
Findings
Effective in linear and nonlinear inverse problems
Applicable to various modalities including medical data
Improves posterior sampling quality and efficiency
Abstract
Diffusion models have recently shown considerable potential in solving Bayesian inverse problems when used as priors. However, sampling from the resulting denoising posterior distributions remains a challenge as it involves intractable terms. To tackle this issue, state-of-the-art approaches formulate the problem as that of sampling from a surrogate diffusion model targeting the posterior and decompose its scores into two terms: the prior score and an intractable guidance term. While the former is replaced by the pre-trained score of the considered diffusion model, the guidance term has to be estimated. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that utilises a decomposition of the transitions which, in contrast to previous methods, allows a trade-off between the complexity of the intractable guidance term and that of the prior transitions. We validate the proposed approach through…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Oral
1. The approach introduces a midpoint guidance mechanism that provides a novel trade-off for guidance and complexity of the learned transition term in diffusion models. This make it different from other diffusion-based posterior sampling methods. 2. The method is well-justified with mathematical rigor. The decomposition of the backward transition and the use of Gaussian variational approximations. 3. MGPS is extensively evaluated across both synthetic and real-world tasks, such as Gaussian mix
1. More exploration of $\eta$ and the midpoint sequence's impact on different task types and data complexities would clarify MGPS's adaptability across scenarios. The authors showed the effect of $\eta$ in the Gaussian toy example. It would be interesting to see $\eta$'s influence in other tasks. 2. The trade-off introduced by the midpoint state could be theoretically explored further. The authors mention the need for tuning this midpoint sequence but provide limited theoretical insights on why
- The idea of midpoint guidance is novel, and intuitively appealing to solve the issues associated with guidance issues especially at the early stages of the diffusion process. - Very thorough evaluation. - Results are good, showing improvement over SOTA methods, including both DDMs and LDMs (that are commonly used in these applications). - Multiple nonlinear inverse problems are studied, an area where other posterior sampling methods have issues. A good level of improvement is shown in these ap
- Unfortunately, the exposition is overly complicated. The idea can be explained much more clearly, but also partly due to non-standard notation, the gist does not come across easily. Section 3 would benefit from a substantial rewrite that changes the notation (please see below), and highlights the main ideas, and potentially even including a figure to show the midpoint guidance idea. - Similarly, the notation does not match rest of the literature on posterior diffusion sampling for inverse prob
S1) The approach is well-motivated and has strong theoretical backing, with a novel theoretical result included in Appendix A.3. S2) The authors evaluate many different problems on multiple datasets, achieving relatively strong performance across the board. S3) The paper is well-written and reasonably easy to follow (although I have some gripes with notation, outlined in the 'Weaknesses' section below. S4) Many great visuals, especially in the appendices. S5) The authors provide very detaile
At a high level, I quite like this work. However, as described below, I feel that the experimental results are incomplete. W1) Even though the paper is well-written, and all mathematical elements check out (at least to me), the notation makes all of the math in Section 3. In particular, the differentiation between scalar and vector quantities is not sufficient. I would suggest that the authors make vector quantities boldface (e.g., $\boldsymbol{x}$). This would make things much easier to read.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsImage Processing Techniques and Applications · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Sparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
MethodsDiffusion
