Latent Generative Models with Tunable Complexity for Compressed Sensing and other Inverse Problems
Sean Gunn, Jorio Cocola, Oliver De Candido, Vaggos Chatziafratis, Paul Hand

TL;DR
This paper introduces tunable-complexity generative priors using nested dropout for inverse problems, enabling adaptable signal representation that improves reconstruction accuracy across various tasks.
Contribution
It develops a novel approach to adjust the complexity of generative models for inverse problems, with empirical and theoretical validation of its effectiveness.
Findings
Tunable priors outperform fixed-complexity models in reconstruction tasks.
Theoretical analysis links optimal tuning to noise level and model structure.
Empirical results across multiple inverse problems demonstrate improved accuracy.
Abstract
Generative models have emerged as powerful priors for solving inverse problems. These models typically represent a class of natural signals using a single fixed complexity or dimensionality. This can be limiting: depending on the problem, a fixed complexity may result in high representation error if too small, or overfitting to noise if too large. We develop tunable-complexity priors for diffusion models, normalizing flows, and variational autoencoders, leveraging nested dropout. Across tasks including compressed sensing, inpainting, denoising, and phase retrieval, we show empirically that tunable priors consistently achieve lower reconstruction errors than fixed-complexity baselines. In the linear denoising setting, we provide a theoretical analysis that explicitly characterizes how the optimal tuning parameter depends on noise and model structure. This work demonstrates the potential…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
1. The method is well explained and conceptually easy to understand. 2. While I have some reservations about the experiments in this work, they are generally well-designed. I am supportive of the baselines presented in this work, which are outperformed by the proposed method with a nontrivial margin. 3. Theorem 5.1 gives a presents a very simple and intuitive picture for why this method works in the context of regularized linear regression. In the linear setting, Corollary 5.2 directly identif
1. While the authors have selected reasonable baselines to compare to, I am worried that they only present direct comparison results to other baselines at specific measurement indices. For instance, Table 1 uses $m/n=0.15$ and Table 2 uses $m/n = 0.075$. It is possible that the proposed method outperforms competitors at specific measurement indices, but not across the spectrum. This is my primary concern with the work. 2. Further, the results presented in Table 1 and Table 2 appear to be comput
- Clear problem & useful knob. The paper cleanly articulates the mismatch of fixed latent capacity and inverse-problem difficulty and provides a practical knob $k$ to trade bias/variance at test time. - Method is simple & broadly applicable. Nested-dropout training + a per-step truncation works across VAEs/NFs/LDMs and multiple inversion solvers (LDPS-style, DPS-style), making adoption easy. - Consistent empirical gains. Plots and tables show nontrivial improvements over fixed-$k$ baselines on C
- Scope & datasets. Experiments are mainly CelebA 64×64; it’s unclear if tunability holds at higher resolutions or domains (MRI/CT, natural high-res). External SOTA pixel-space diffusion priors (DPS variants) are compared but breadth is limited. - Existing theorem in literature. Theorem 1 in Asim et al (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.11672) has a very similar result in terms of the singular values of $G$. It's also closely related to the main theorems in Yu and Shapiro (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.5
The paper is well-written and easy to understand.
The paper has several limitations that make it unsuitable for acceptance at this conference: 1. If I understand correctly, Algorithms 1 and 2 require the tunable parameter as input, which is not known a priori. Identifying an appropriate value needs running the algorithm many times across different values for each new measurement which is expensive and slow. Beyond the computational cost, this approach is impractical for real-world scientific problems, where the ground truth is unknown and no
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis · Model Reduction and Neural Networks · Advanced X-ray Imaging Techniques
