Conditional Mutual Information Based Diffusion Posterior Sampling for Solving Inverse Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverse problems are prevalent across various disciplines in science and engineering. In the field of computer vision, tasks such as inpainting, deblurring, and super-resolution are commonly formulated as inverse problems. Recently, diffusion models (DMs) have emerged as a promising approach for addressing noisy linear inverse problems, offering effective solutions without requiring additional task-specific training. Specifically, with the prior provided by DMs, one can sample from the posterior by finding the likelihood. Since the likelihood is intractable, it is often approximated in the literature. However, this approximation compromises the quality of the generated images. To overcome this limitation and improve the effectiveness of DMs in solving inverse problems, we propose an information-theoretic approach. Specifically, we maximize the conditional mutual information$\mathrm{I}\left(x_{0}; y \mid x_{t}\right)$, where$x_{0}$represents the reconstructed signal,$y$is the measurement, and$x_{t}$is the intermediate signal at stage$t$. This ensures that the intermediate signals$x_{t}$are generated in a way that the final reconstructed signal$x_{0}$retains as much information as possible about the measurement$y$. We demonstrate that this method can be seamlessly integrated with recent approaches and, once incorporated, enhances their performance both qualitatively and quantitatively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".