Compositional simulation-based inference for time series
Manuel Gloeckler, Shoji Toyota, Kenji Fukumizu, Jakob H. Macke

TL;DR
This paper introduces a novel simulation-based inference method for time series that leverages the Markovian structure of simulators to improve efficiency and scalability, demonstrated on synthetic and high-dimensional real-world data.
Contribution
It presents a new SBI approach that exploits local transition information in Markovian simulators to efficiently infer parameters from entire time series.
Findings
More simulation-efficient than global posterior estimation.
Effective on synthetic benchmarks in ecology and epidemiology.
Scalable to high-dimensional data with around one million dimensions.
Abstract
Amortized simulation-based inference (SBI) methods train neural networks on simulated data to perform Bayesian inference. While this strategy avoids the need for tractable likelihoods, it often requires a large number of simulations and has been challenging to scale to time series data. Scientific simulators frequently emulate real-world dynamics through thousands of single-state transitions over time. We propose an SBI approach that can exploit such Markovian simulators by locally identifying parameters consistent with individual state transitions. We then compose these local results to obtain a posterior over parameters that align with the entire time series observation. We focus on applying this approach to neural posterior score estimation but also show how it can be applied, e.g., to neural likelihood (ratio) estimation. We demonstrate that our approach is more simulation-efficient…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Poster
The paper addresses the relevant problem of computational complexity in SBI which arises when the simulator is costly to sample from. The experimental evaluation seems thorough, and the results are significant for FNSE.
My main concern is related to the novelty of the paper. The main technical contribution lies in deriving the factorized NSE method, which as the authors mention, is an extension of the setting of the Geffner et al. (2023) paper to the Markov setting. An in-depth analysis/discussion around selecting the proposal $\tilde{p}(\mathbf x^t)$ and providing recommendations on its choice would have strengthened the paper significantly and added to the technical contribution. The paragraph discussing the
- The paper is self-contained, easy to follow, and it attempts to address a challenging problem that is relevant to the field as a whole. - The method is applicable to different classes of SBI methods (e.g., likelihood approximation, likelihood ratio approximation, direct posterior estimation). - The idea is original and can stimulate further research into efficient SBI on dynamic models, especially when simulation budgets are scarce.
- As far as I understand it, the proposed method is a straightforward extension of FNPE with an additional input to the score estimator (Eq.6 in [1]). As such, the claim that a new “general SBI framework” is proposed requires some calibration. In contrast, the authors could highlight and extend the empirical aspects of the work. - While the basic idea is rather appealing, I find it a bit unconvincing that FNPE can robustly approximate the correct global posteriors with sparse training (the same
- The paper is exceptionally well-written. Secs. 2 and 3 set up the problem well, and describe the contributions in the context of existing literature. I feel like I learned a lot about the surrounding field beyond the specific contributions of the paper by reading these sections. Limitations are discussed upfront, and some extension settings explored in an initial way. - The experiments in the paper are well-motivated. The paper looks at toy models, standard benchmarks, as well as more challeng
While the core methods are described nicely, some practical aspects receive less thorough treatment. Specifically, the proposal distribution seems like a critical design choice (especially for complex problems like Kolmogorov flow), and the score composition rules prove surprisingly robust even when their assumptions are violated (e.g. GAUSS in non-Gaussian setting). There is limited discussion of why, and limited principled guidance on these implementation choices that practitioners might need
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
MethodsALIGN · Focus
