Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 17, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Generative models are increasingly used to solve scientific inverse problems, but existing evaluations still focus primarily on whether a method can produce a single plausible reconstruction. This is insufficient for ill-posed problems, where multiple solutions may be consistent with the same sparse or noisy observations. In these settings, a method can achieve strong pointwise accuracy while still failing to capture the true posterior through mode collapse, overconfident uncertainty, or averaging incompatible solutions. We introduce PosteriorBench, a benchmark for evaluating the distributional accuracy of generative inverse solvers. PosteriorBench evaluates four physics-based inverse problems: Darcy flow inversion, Poisson source recovery, carbon capture and storage, and light transport material inference. For each task, we construct high-fidelity reference posteriors using computationally heavy but established procedures such as rejection sampling and Markov chain Monte Carlo, enabling direct assessment of whether solvers recover the full set of solutions rather than the single best sample. We pair these references with a five-metric posterior evaluation suite: posterior-mean error, posterior-standard-deviation error, maximum mean discrepancy, sliced Wasserstein distance, and radially averaged power-spectrum error. These metrics assess pointwise accuracy, marginal uncertainty, distributional alignment, and global frequency fidelity. The benchmark spans sparse sensing, low-resolution observations, nonlinear forward models, varying noise levels, and multimodal priors, with a unified pipeline for distribution matching and uncertainty quantification. Our experiments reveal substantial distribution-matching gaps across current solvers, while showing that neural operators improve resolution robustness, and guidance weights and generation noise are key to posterior-variance calibration.