Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Xiyan Cai
dblp:247/1038
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Generative modeling · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Generative modeling
diffusion model |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking Diffusion Posterior Sampling: From Conditional Score Estimator to Maximizing a Posterior · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling › diffusion model › diffusion sampling
diffusion posterior sampling |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking Diffusion Posterior Sampling: From Conditional Score Estimator to Maximizing a Posterior · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
inverse problem |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking Diffusion Posterior Sampling: From Conditional Score Estimator to Maximizing a Posterior · ICLR 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
maximum a posteriori · 0.9gradient ascent · 0.9conditional score estimation · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Rethinking Diffusion Posterior Sampling: From Conditional Score Estimator to Maximizing a PosteriorabstractRecent 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 512$\times$512 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 zero, rendering it an invalid score estimation; 3) DPS generates high-quality samples with significantly lower diversity. In light of the above findings, we posit that DPS more closely resembles MAP than a conditional score estimator, and accordingly propose the following enhancements to DPS: 1) we explicitly maximize the posterior through multi-step gradient ascent and projection; 2) we utilize a light-weighted conditional score estimator trained with only 100 images and 8 GPU hours. Extensive experimental results indicate that these proposed improvements significantly enhance DPS's performance. The source code for these improvements is provided in https://github.com/tongdaxu/Rethinking-Diffusion-Posterior-Sampling-From-Conditional-Score-Estimator-to-Maximizing-a-Posterior. Tongda Xu, Xiyan Cai, Xingtong Ge, Dailan He, Ya-Qin Zhang, Yan Wang 0105 |
ICLR | 2 |