Rethinking Diffusion Posterior Sampling: From Conditional Score Estimator to Maximizing a Posterior
Tongda Xu, Xiyan Cai, Xinjie Zhang, Xingtong Ge, Dailan He, Ming Sun, Jingjing Liu, Ya-Qin Zhang, Jian Li, Yan Wang

TL;DR
This paper reinterprets Diffusion Posterior Sampling (DPS) as a maximum a posteriori (MAP) approach rather than a conditional score estimator, and proposes improvements that significantly enhance its performance on image generation tasks.
Contribution
The paper demonstrates that DPS aligns more with MAP than conditional score estimation and introduces explicit posterior maximization and a lightweight score estimator to improve results.
Findings
DPS's conditional score diverges from the true score and is inferior to the unconditional score.
The conditional score estimate from DPS significantly deviates from zero, invalidating it as a proper score.
Proposed methods improve DPS's sample quality and diversity substantially.
Abstract
Recent advancements in diffusion models have been leveraged to address inverse problems without additional training, and Diffusion Posterior Sampling (DPS) (Chung et al., 2022a) is among the most popular approaches. Previous analyses suggest that DPS accomplishes posterior sampling by approximating the conditional score. While in this paper, we demonstrate that the conditional score approximation employed by DPS is not as effective as previously assumed, but rather aligns more closely with the principle of maximizing a posterior (MAP). This assertion is substantiated through an examination of DPS on 512x512 ImageNet images, revealing that: 1) DPS's conditional score estimation significantly diverges from the score of a well-trained conditional diffusion model and is even inferior to the unconditional score; 2) The mean of DPS's conditional score estimation deviates significantly from…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Poster
- This paper is well organized. I enjoy reading this paper. - This work suggests MAP hypothesis that can explain the recent mysterious observations regarding DPS. I think this is clear and novel contribution. - Significant performance gain by being more faithful to MAP estimate well supports their hypothesis. -
- Although I think insights from this paper is beneficial, this paper heavily relies on the empirical observations to develop and support their claims. It is okay, but theoretical insights will be strengthen their claim and more naturally lead to their MAP hypothesis. - This work is limited to show that MAP hypothesis can explain the weird part of DPS rather than clarifying the reason why it works in MAP estimate.
* The paper presents compelling evidence through empirical analysis on 512x512 ImageNet images that DPS does not effectively approximate conditional score, contradicting prior understanding. * The proposed improvements, explicit MAP implementation (DMAP) and a light-weighted conditional score estimator, are shown to significantly enhance the performance of DPS. * The paper is well-organized and provides clear explanations of the technical details, including the mathematical formulations and algo
* The paper mainly focuses on image restoration tasks and the generalizability of the MAP hypothesis to other inverse problems is not explored. * While the light-weighted conditional score estimator is efficient, its performance still lags behind well-trained conditional diffusion models like StableSR. * The authors claim that the MAP hypothesis can explain why Adam helps DPS, but this claim is not sufficiently substantiated.
1. The paper has the potential for significant impact as this is a popular field at the moment. 2. It introduces new ideas and reinterprets existing arguments, supported by data that validates this new perspective. 3. Building on their reinterpretation, the authors develop a new method that outperforms traditional DPS.
1. The paper has several grammatical flaws: - Captions for tables should be placed on top, as I believe this is required formatting by ICLR. - Add an arrow to indicate that lower FID is better, and do the same for other metrics. - There are many undefined acronyms, such as FID, KID, and LPIPS. - The captions for figures and tables could be improved for clarity, adding the takeaway from each table and image as in the text would benefit the reader. - In line 196, the notation for di
Code & Models
Videos
Taxonomy
TopicsProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design · Statistical Methods and Inference · Advanced Statistical Process Monitoring
MethodsDiffusion
