pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.02528 · v3 · submitted 2025-12-02 · 🧬 q-bio.QM

Assessment of Simulation-based Inference Methods for Stochastic Compartmental Models in Epidemiological Research

Vincent Wieland , Nils Wassmuth , Lorenzo Contento , Martin K\"uhn , Jan Hasenauer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 02:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.QM
keywords simulation-based inferencestochastic compartmental modelsepidemiological modelingparticle Markov chain Monte Carloconditional normalizing flowsparameter estimationlikelihood-free inferencepublic health forecasting
0
0 comments X

The pith

Likelihood-free Bayesian methods accurately estimate parameters in stochastic SIS, SIR and SEIR epidemic models from noisy data.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compares pseudo-marginal particle Markov chain Monte Carlo, which relies on a particle filter for unbiased likelihood estimates, against conditional normalizing flows for inferring parameters in stochastic compartmental models of disease spread. It evaluates both approaches on SIS, SIR, and two-variant SEIR models together with observation models that translate latent trajectories into observable data. Simulation studies show the methods recover parameters while capturing stochastic epidemic dynamics, and application to an Ethiopian cohort dataset confirms they remain effective under real-world noise and irregular sampling. These capabilities support generation of nowcasts and short-term forecasts that can guide public health responses. The authors release code and synthetic datasets to enable reuse in building decision-support pipelines.

Core claim

Likelihood-free inference via particle-filter pseudo-marginal MCMC and conditional normalizing flows yields accurate and robust parameter estimates for stochastic compartmental models even when likelihoods are intractable, as shown by successful recovery of parameters in simulated SIS, SIR, and SEIR trajectories and by maintained performance on real epidemiological observations from an Ethiopian cohort subject to noise and irregular sampling.

What carries the argument

Pseudo-marginal particle Markov chain Monte Carlo using particle filters for unbiased likelihood estimates, together with conditional normalizing flows, applied to stochastic compartmental models equipped with observation models.

If this is right

  • The methods support fast nowcasts and short-term forecasts that can inform control of epidemic outbreaks.
  • They capture stochastic dynamics across classical SIS, SIR, and multi-variant SEIR models.
  • Performance remains stable under real-world noise and irregular data sampling as seen in the Ethiopian cohort.
  • Public release of code and synthetic datasets enables construction of reusable inference pipelines for public health applications.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same workflow could be tested on models that add spatial structure or explicit intervention effects without changing the core inference machinery.
  • Hybrid use of MCMC for calibration and normalizing flows for rapid sampling might further reduce computation time for ongoing surveillance.
  • Results point toward replacing simplified deterministic models with stochastic ones in operational forecasting systems when data irregularities are present.
  • Wider deployment could allow parameter tracking from limited or delayed reports during future outbreaks.

Load-bearing premise

The observation models and noise structures chosen for the simulation study adequately represent the irregularities and biases found in real epidemiological surveillance data.

What would settle it

Application of the same methods to additional real outbreak datasets with independently known transmission parameters that produces systematic bias or high uncertainty in recovered values would falsify the claim of operational robustness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.02528 by Jan Hasenauer, Lorenzo Contento, Martin K\"uhn, Nils Wassmuth, Vincent Wieland.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic representations of the models and methods. (a) Graph of compart￾ments and possible transitions with corresponding rate parameters for the SIR model. (b) Graph of compartments and possible transitions with corresponding rate parameters for the two-variant SEIR model. (c) Workflow for the assessment of the Bayesian inference. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evaluation of the posterior approximations for the SIR model A Posterior approximations based on 10,000 samples, true parameters are indicated by bold black lines and joint MAP estimates appear in a darker shade. B Model fit with percentiles (50%, 90%, 95%) based on simulating the 10,000 samples. Beyond these direct comparisons, the methods differed in sampling quality. PF achieved excellent convergence, w… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Marginal posterior approximations and prior distribution. Histograms of poste￾rior approximations and prior distribution for the two-variant SEIR model using a dense dataset. mates differ under CNF and PF. We first examined posterior distributions and predictive performance using four dense simu￾lated observational time series. Posterior distributions showed markedly lower variance compared to the correspo… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evaluation of the posterior approximations for the two-variant SEIR model with a dense dataset. A Posterior approximations based on 10,000 samples, true parameters are indicated by bold black lines and joint MAP estimates appear in a darker shade. B Model fit with percentiles (50%, 90%, 95%) based on simulating the 10,000 samples. relatively low (∼500–600) for several parameters (Supplementary Table S13), … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evaluation of the posterior approximations for the reparametrized two-variant SEIR model with dense data. A Posterior approximations based on 10,000 samples, true parameters are indicated by bold black lines and joint MAP estimates appear in a darker shade. B Model fit with percentiles (50%, 90%, 95%) based on simulating the 10,000 samples. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evaluation of the posterior approximations for the two-variant SEIR model with real data. A Posterior approximations based on 10,000 samples, true parameters are indicated by bold black lines and joint MAP estimates appear in a darker shade. B Model fit with percentiles (50%, 90%, 95%) based on simulating the 10,000 samples. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Global pandemics, such as the recent COVID-19 crisis, highlight the need for stochastic epidemic models that can capture the randomness inherent in the spread of disease. Such models must be accompanied by methods for estimating parameters in order to generate fast nowcasts and short-term forecasts that can inform public health decisions. This paper presents a comparison of two advanced Bayesian inference methods: 1) pseudo-marginal particle Markov chain Monte Carlo, using an unbiased likelihood estimate obtained by Particle Filter (PF), and 2) Conditional Normalizing Flows (CNF). We investigate their performance on three commonly used compartmental models: A classical Susceptible-Infected-Susceptible (SIS), a Susceptible-Infected-Recovered (SIR) model and a two-variant Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered (SEIR) model, complemented by an observation model that maps latent trajectories to empirical data. Addressing the challenges of intractable likelihoods for parameter inference in stochastic settings, our analysis highlights how these likelihood-free methods provide accurate and robust inference capabilities. The results of our simulation study further underscore the effectiveness of these approaches in capturing the stochastic dynamics of epidemics, providing prediction capabilities for the control of epidemic outbreaks. Results on an Ethiopian cohort study demonstrate operational robustness under real-world noise and irregular data sampling. To facilitate reuse and to enable building pipelines that ultimately contribute to better informed decision making in public health, we make code and synthetic datasets publicly available.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares two likelihood-free Bayesian inference methods—pseudo-marginal particle Markov chain Monte Carlo (PF-PMCMC) using a particle filter and Conditional Normalizing Flows (CNF)—for parameter estimation in stochastic SIS, SIR, and two-variant SEIR compartmental models. An observation model maps latent states to data. Performance is assessed via simulation studies with known ground-truth parameters and via application to an Ethiopian cohort study; the authors conclude that both methods deliver accurate, robust inference and operational robustness under real-world noise and irregular sampling. Code and synthetic datasets are released publicly.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work supplies a practical benchmark of two modern likelihood-free methods for stochastic epidemic models, directly supporting nowcasting and short-term forecasting in public-health settings. The public release of code and synthetic data is a clear strength that enables reuse and pipeline building.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Ethiopian-cohort results] Abstract and Ethiopian-cohort results section: the claim that the cohort results 'demonstrate operational robustness under real-world noise and irregular data sampling' is load-bearing for the paper’s central robustness conclusion. No sensitivity analysis is reported that perturbs the observation-model noise structure (e.g., time-varying underreporting or clustered missingness) and re-runs inference; without such a check, any mismatch between the assumed noise and actual surveillance irregularities directly undermines the robustness statement for real data that lack ground truth.
minor comments (1)
  1. Add quantitative diagnostics (e.g., posterior predictive p-values or discrepancy measures) comparing simulated versus observed data features in addition to the visual checks already presented.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address the major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Ethiopian-cohort results] Abstract and Ethiopian-cohort results section: the claim that the cohort results 'demonstrate operational robustness under real-world noise and irregular data sampling' is load-bearing for the paper’s central robustness conclusion. No sensitivity analysis is reported that perturbs the observation-model noise structure (e.g., time-varying underreporting or clustered missingness) and re-runs inference; without such a check, any mismatch between the assumed noise and actual surveillance irregularities directly undermines the robustness statement for real data that lack ground truth.

    Authors: We agree that the robustness claim for the Ethiopian cohort application is central and would be strengthened by explicit sensitivity checks on the observation model. Our simulation studies already vary observation noise levels and sampling irregularity to evaluate performance under controlled mismatches, but we did not re-run the real-data inference under perturbed noise structures such as time-varying underreporting or clustered missingness. We will add this sensitivity analysis to the revised manuscript, including results under alternative noise assumptions, to provide stronger support for the operational robustness statement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in simulation-based assessment of inference methods

full rationale

The paper performs an empirical comparison of PF-PMCMC and CNF on SIS/SIR/SEIR models via simulation studies with known ground-truth parameters and applies the methods to an Ethiopian cohort dataset. Performance is evaluated using standard metrics such as parameter recovery accuracy and posterior predictive checks against external benchmarks (simulated trajectories and observed data features). These results are generated from independent simulation runs and real-data application rather than reducing to quantities defined by fitted parameters or self-referential definitions within the paper. The observation model is introduced as a separate component mapping latent states to data, with no evidence that predictions or robustness claims are equivalent to inputs by construction. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks and makes code and synthetic data available for verification.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard assumptions of stochastic compartmental models and Bayesian inference; no new entities are postulated. Free parameters are the model parameters being inferred rather than invented by the authors.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Stochastic compartmental models generate trajectories whose likelihood is intractable under partial observations.
    Stated in the abstract as the core challenge addressed by likelihood-free methods.
  • standard math Particle filters produce unbiased estimates of the likelihood for use in pseudo-marginal MCMC.
    Standard property invoked when describing the first method.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5571 in / 1339 out tokens · 37690 ms · 2026-05-17T02:52:57.448172+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Esayas Kebede Gudina, Solomon Ali, Eyob Girma, Addisu Gize, Birhanemeskel Tegene, Gadissa Bedada Hundie, Wondewosen Tsegaye Sime, Rozina Ambachew, Alganesh Gebrey- ohanns, Mahteme Bekele, Abhishek Bakuli, Kira Elsbernd, Simon Merkt, Lorenzo Contento, Michael Hoelscher, Jan Hasenauer, Andreas Wieser, and Arne Kroidl. Seroepidemiology and model-based predic...

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Assessing the use of influenza forecasts and epidemiological modeling in public health decision making in the united states.Scientific reports, 8(1):12406, 2018

    Colin Doms, Sarah C Kramer, and Jeffrey Shaman. Assessing the use of influenza forecasts and epidemiological modeling in public health decision making in the united states.Scientific reports, 8(1):12406, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    The changing face of pandemic risk: 2024 report, 2025

    Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. The changing face of pandemic risk: 2024 report, 2025

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    William Ogilvy Kermack, A. G. McKendrick, and Gilbert Thomas Walker. A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 115(772):700–721, 1927

    work page 1927

  5. [5]

    The mathematics of infectious diseases.SIAM review, 42(4):599–653, 2000

    Herbert W Hethcote. The mathematics of infectious diseases.SIAM review, 42(4):599–653, 2000

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Agent-based models in empirical social research.Socio- logical Methods & Research, 44(2):186–221, 2015

    Elizabeth Bruch and Jon Atwell. Agent-based models in empirical social research.Socio- logical Methods & Research, 44(2):186–221, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Stochastic epidemic models: a survey.Mathematical Biosciences, 225(1):24– 35, 2010

    Tom Britton. Stochastic epidemic models: a survey.Mathematical Biosciences, 225(1):24– 35, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Fakult¨ at f¨ ur Mathematik, Informatik und Statistik der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨ at M¨ unchen, 2010

    Christiane Dragatz.Bayesian inference for diffusion processes. Fakult¨ at f¨ ur Mathematik, Informatik und Statistik der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨ at M¨ unchen, 2010

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    Linda J. S. Allen. A primer on stochastic epidemic models: Formulation, numerical simu- lation, and analysis.Infectious Disease Modelling, 2:128–142, 2017

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Perspective: Stochastic algorithms for chemical kinetics.Journal of Chemical Physics, 138, 2013

    Dan Gillespie, Andreas Hellander, and Linda Petzold. Perspective: Stochastic algorithms for chemical kinetics.Journal of Chemical Physics, 138, 2013

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    A diffusion approximation for an epidemic model, 2006

    Christiane Dragatz. A diffusion approximation for an epidemic model, 2006

    work page 2006

  12. [12]

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008

    Fred Brauer.Compartmental Models in Epidemiology, chapter 6, pages 19–79. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008

    work page 2008

  13. [13]

    N. G. van Kampen. The expansion of the master equation.Advance in Chemical Physics, 19, 1976

    work page 1976

  14. [14]

    Inference for reaction networks using the linear noise approximation.Biometrics, 70(2):457–466, 2014

    Paul Fearnhead, Vasilieos Giagos, and Chris Sherlock. Inference for reaction networks using the linear noise approximation.Biometrics, 70(2):457–466, 2014

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Solutions of ordinary differential equations as limits of pure jump markov processes.Journal of Applied Probability, 7(1):49–58, 1970

    Thomas G Kurtz. Solutions of ordinary differential equations as limits of pure jump markov processes.Journal of Applied Probability, 7(1):49–58, 1970. 24

    work page 1970

  16. [16]

    Cambridge Studies in Mathematical Biology

    Hakan Andersson and Tom Britton.Stochastic epidemic models and their statistical analy- sis. Cambridge Studies in Mathematical Biology. Springer Verlag, 2001

    work page 2001

  17. [17]

    Estimating parameters in stochastic compartmental models using Markov chain methods.Mathematical Medicine and Biology: A Journal of the IMA, 15(1):19–40, 1998

    Gavin J Gibson and Eric Renshaw. Estimating parameters in stochastic compartmental models using Markov chain methods.Mathematical Medicine and Biology: A Journal of the IMA, 15(1):19–40, 1998

    work page 1998

  18. [18]

    Bayesian inference for partially observed stochas- tic epidemics.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 162(1):121–129, 1999

    Philip D O’Neill and Gareth O Roberts. Bayesian inference for partially observed stochas- tic epidemics.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 162(1):121–129, 1999

    work page 1999

  19. [19]

    Challenges in estimation, uncertainty quantification and elicitation for pandemic modelling.Epidemics, 38:100547, 2022

    Ben Swallow, Paul Birrell, Joshua Blake, Mark Burgman, Peter Challenor, Luc E Coffeng, Philip Dawid, Daniela De Angelis, Michael Goldstein, Victoria Hemming, et al. Challenges in estimation, uncertainty quantification and elicitation for pandemic modelling.Epidemics, 38:100547, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    A linear noise approximation for stochastic epidemic models fit to partially observed incidence counts.Biometrics, 78(4):1530–1541, 2022

    Jonathan Fintzi, Jon Wakefield, and Vladimir N Minin. A linear noise approximation for stochastic epidemic models fit to partially observed incidence counts.Biometrics, 78(4):1530–1541, 2022

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Simulation-based Bayesian inference for epidemic models.Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 71:434– 447, 2014

    Trevelyan J McKinley, Joshua V Ross, Rob Deardon, and Alex R Cook. Simulation-based Bayesian inference for epidemic models.Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 71:434– 447, 2014

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    Bayesian inference for nonlinear stochastic SIR epidemic model.Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 86(11):2229–2240, 2016

    Hamid El Maroufy, Tewfik Kernane, Sidali Becheket, and Abdellah Ouddadj. Bayesian inference for nonlinear stochastic SIR epidemic model.Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 86(11):2229–2240, 2016

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    On sequential Monte Carlo sam- pling methods for Bayesian filtering.Statistics and Computing, 2000

    Arnaud Doucet, Simon Godsill, and Christophe Andrieu. On sequential Monte Carlo sam- pling methods for Bayesian filtering.Statistics and Computing, 2000

    work page 2000

  24. [24]

    Chopin, P

    N. Chopin, P. E. Jacob, and O. Papaspiliopoulos. SMC2: An efficient algorithm for se- quential analysis of state space models.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 75, 2012

    work page 2012

  25. [25]

    Christophe Andrieu and Gareth O. Roberts. The pseudo-marginal approach for efficient Monte Carlo computations.The Annals of Statistics, 37(2), 2009

    work page 2009

  26. [26]

    Particle Markov chain Monte Carlo methods.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 72(3):269–342, 2010

    Christophe Andrieu, Arnaud Doucet, and Roman Holenstein. Particle Markov chain Monte Carlo methods.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 72(3):269–342, 2010

    work page 2010

  27. [28]

    McLean, and Umberto Picchini

    Samuel Wiqvist, Andrew Golightly, Ashleigh T. McLean, and Umberto Picchini. Efficient inference for stochastic differential equation mixed-effects models using correlated particle pseudo-marginal algorithms.Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 157, 2021

    work page 2021

  28. [29]

    Bayesianly justifiable and relevant frequency calculations for the applied statistician.The Annals of Statistics, pages 1151–1172, 1984

    Donald B Rubin. Bayesianly justifiable and relevant frequency calculations for the applied statistician.The Annals of Statistics, pages 1151–1172, 1984. 25

    work page 1984

  29. [30]

    Approximate Bayesian computation for infectious disease modelling.Epidemics, 29, 2019

    Amanda Minter and Renata Retkute. Approximate Bayesian computation for infectious disease modelling.Epidemics, 29, 2019

    work page 2019

  30. [31]

    The frontier of simulation-based in- ference.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30055–30062, 2020

    Kyle Cranmer, Johann Brehmer, and Gilles Louppe. The frontier of simulation-based in- ference.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30055–30062, 2020

    work page 2020

  31. [32]

    Radev, Ulf K

    Stefan T. Radev, Ulf K. Mertens, Andreas Voss, Lynton Ardizzone, and Ullrich K¨ othe. BayesFlow: Learning complex stochastic models with invertible neural networks.IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 33(4):1452–1466, 2020

    work page 2020

  32. [33]

    Stefan T Radev, Frederik Graw, Simiao Chen, Nico T Mutters, Vanessa M Eichel, Till B¨ arnighausen, and Ullrich K¨ othe. OutbreakFlow: Model-based Bayesian inference of disease outbreak dynamics with invertible neural networks and its application to the COVID-19 pandemics in Germany.PLoS computational biology, 17(10):e1009472, 2021

    work page 2021

  33. [34]

    Geir Storvik, Alfonso Diz-Lois Palomares, Solveig Engebretsen, Gunnar Oyvind Isaksson Ro, Kenth Engo-Monsen, Anja Brathen Kristoffersen, Birgitte Freiesleben de Blasio, and Arnoldo Frigessi. A sequential monte carlo approach to estimate a time-varying reproduction number in infectious disease models: the covid-19 case*.Journal of the Royal Statistical Soc...

    work page 2023

  34. [35]

    Tiberiu Harko, Francisco SN Lobo, and Man Kwong Mak. Exact analytical solutions of the susceptible-infected-recovered (sir) epidemic model and of the sir model with equal death and birth rates.Applied Mathematics and Computation, 236:184–194, 2014

    work page 2014

  35. [36]

    Cambridge University Press, 1999

    Daryl J Daley and Joseph Mark Gani.Epidemic modelling: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, 1999

    work page 1999

  36. [37]

    Princeton University Press, 2008

    Matt J Keeling and Pejman Rohani.Modeling infectious diseases in humans and animals. Princeton University Press, 2008

    work page 2008

  37. [38]

    Wiley Online Library, 1994

    Jos´ e M Bernardo, Adrian FM Smith, and Mark Berliner.Bayesian theory, volume 586. Wiley Online Library, 1994

    work page 1994

  38. [40]

    Wilkinson

    Darren J. Wilkinson. Parameter inference for stochastic kinetic models of bacterial gene regulation: A Bayesian approach to systems biology. InBayesian Statistics 9, pages 679–

    work page

  39. [41]

    Oxford University Press, 2011

    work page 2011

  40. [42]

    Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH, 2013

    Jan Hasenauer.Modeling and parameter estimation for heterogeneous cell populations. Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH, 2013

    work page 2013

  41. [43]

    Wilkinson

    Andrew Golightly and Darren J. Wilkinson. Bayesian parameter inference for stochastic biochemical network models using particle Markov chain Monte Carlo.Interface Focus, 1(6):807–820, 2011. Publisher: Royal Society

    work page 2011

  42. [44]

    Springer, 2004

    Pierre Moral.Feynman-Kac formulae: Genealogical and interacting particle systems with applications. Springer, 2004. 26

    work page 2004

  43. [46]

    Variational inference with normalizing flows

    Danilo Rezende and Shakir Mohamed. Variational inference with normalizing flows. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1530–1538. PMLR, 2015

    work page 2015

  44. [47]

    Learning likeli- hoods with conditional normalizing flows.arXiv preprint, 2019

    Christina Winkler, Daniel Worrall, Emiel Hoogeboom, and Max Welling. Learning likeli- hoods with conditional normalizing flows.arXiv preprint, 2019

    work page 2019

  45. [48]

    Normalizing flows: An introduc- tion and review of current methods.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(11):3964–3979, 2020

    Ivan Kobyzev, Simon JD Prince, and Marcus A Brubaker. Normalizing flows: An introduc- tion and review of current methods.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(11):3964–3979, 2020

    work page 2020

  46. [49]

    Guided image generation with conditional invertible neural networks.arXiv preprint, 2019

    Lynton Ardizzone, Carsten L¨ uth, Jakob Kruse, Carsten Rother, and Ullrich K¨ othe. Guided image generation with conditional invertible neural networks.arXiv preprint, 2019

    work page 2019

  47. [50]

    Structured con- ditional continuous normalizing flows for efficient amortized inference in graphical models

    Christian Weilbach, Boyan Beronov, William Harvey, and Frank Wood. Structured con- ditional continuous normalizing flows for efficient amortized inference in graphical models. InProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 108, pages 4441–4451, 2020

    work page 2020

  48. [51]

    Witte, and Felix J

    Ali Siahkoohi, Gabrio Rizzuti, Philipp A. Witte, and Felix J. Herrmann. Faster uncertainty quantification for inverse problems with conditional normalizing flows.arXiv preprint, 2020

    work page 2020

  49. [52]

    BayesFlow: Amortized Bayesian workflows with neural networks, 2023

    Stefan T Radev, Marvin Schmitt, Lukas Schumacher, Lasse Elsem¨ uller, Valentin Pratz, Yan- nik Sch¨ alte, Ullrich K¨ othe, and Paul-Christian B¨ urkner. BayesFlow: Amortized Bayesian workflows with neural networks, 2023

    work page 2023

  50. [53]

    Val- idating bayesian inference algorithms with simulation-based calibration.arXiv preprint, 2018

    Sean Talts, Michael Betancourt, Daniel Simpson, Aki Vehtari, and Andrew Gelman. Val- idating bayesian inference algorithms with simulation-based calibration.arXiv preprint, 2018

    work page 2018

  51. [54]

    Adaptive methods for stochastic differential equa- tions via natural embeddings and rejection sampling with memory.Discrete and continuous dynamical systems

    Christopher Rackauckas and Qing Nie. Adaptive methods for stochastic differential equa- tions via natural embeddings and rejection sampling with memory.Discrete and continuous dynamical systems. Series B, 22(7):2731, 2017

    work page 2017

  52. [55]

    Modelingtoolkit: A composable graph transformation system for equation- based modeling, 2021

    Yingbo Ma, Shashi Gowda, Ranjan Anantharaman, Chris Laughman, Viral Shah, and Chris Rackauckas. Modelingtoolkit: A composable graph transformation system for equation- based modeling, 2021

    work page 2021

  53. [56]

    An adaptive metropolis algorithm

    Heikki Haario, Eero Saksman, and Johanna Tamminen. An adaptive metropolis algorithm. Bernoulli, 7(2):223 – 242, 2001

    work page 2001

  54. [57]

    pyPESTO - Parameter EStimation TOolbox for python (v0.2.16), 2023

    Yannik Sch¨ alte, Fabian Fr¨ ohlich, Paul Stapor, Jakob Vanhoefer, Daniel Weindl, Paul Jonas Jost, Dantong Wang, Polina Lakrisenko, Elba Raim´ undez, Dilan Pathirana, Leonard Schmi- ester, Philipp St¨ adter, Lorenzo Contento, Simon Merkt, Erika Dudkin, Stephan Grein, and Jan Hasenauer. pyPESTO - Parameter EStimation TOolbox for python (v0.2.16), 2023

    work page 2023

  55. [58]

    Tor Erlend Fjelde, Kai Xu, David Widmann, Mohamed Tarek, Cameron Pfiffer, Martin Trapp, Seth D Axen, Xianda Sun, Markus Hauru, Penelope Yong, et al. Turing. jl: a general-purpose probabilistic programming language.ACM Transactions on Probabilistic Machine Learning, 2025. 27

    work page 2025

  56. [59]

    Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved R for assessing convergence of MCMC (with discussion).Bayesian analysis, 16(2), 2021

    Aki Vehtari, Andrew Gelman, Daniel Simpson, Bob Carpenter, and Paul-Christian B¨ urkner. Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved R for assessing convergence of MCMC (with discussion).Bayesian analysis, 16(2), 2021

    work page 2021

  57. [60]

    Missing data in amortized simulation- based neural posterior estimation.PLOS Computational Biology, 20(6):e1012184, 2024

    Zijian Wang, Jan Hasenauer, and Yannik Sch¨ alte. Missing data in amortized simulation- based neural posterior estimation.PLOS Computational Biology, 20(6):e1012184, 2024

    work page 2024

  58. [61]

    Routledge, 1998

    Bernard W Silverman.Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Routledge, 1998

    work page 1998

  59. [62]

    Incubation period of COVID-19: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research.BMJ open, 10(8):e039652, 2020

    Conor McAloon, ´Aine Collins, Kevin Hunt, Ann Barber, Andrew W Byrne, Francis Butler, Miriam Casey, John Griffin, Elizabeth Lane, David McEvoy, et al. Incubation period of COVID-19: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research.BMJ open, 10(8):e039652, 2020

    work page 2020

  60. [63]

    Comparisons of viral shedding time of SARS-CoV-2 of different samples in ICU and non- ICU patients.The Journal of infection, 81(1):147, 2020

    Zhixiong Fang, Yi Zhang, Changfa Hang, Jingwen Ai, Shaojie Li, and Wenhong Zhang. Comparisons of viral shedding time of SARS-CoV-2 of different samples in ICU and non- ICU patients.The Journal of infection, 81(1):147, 2020

    work page 2020

  61. [64]

    COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan demonstrates the limitations of publicly available case numbers for epidemiological modeling.Epidemics, 34:100439, 2021

    Elba Raim´ undez, Erika Dudkin, Jakob Vanhoefer, Emad Alamoudi, Simon Merkt, Lara Fuhrmann, Fan Bai, and Jan Hasenauer. COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan demonstrates the limitations of publicly available case numbers for epidemiological modeling.Epidemics, 34:100439, 2021

    work page 2021

  62. [65]

    Posterior collapse and latent variable non-identifiability.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:5443–5455, 2021

    Yixin Wang, David Blei, and John P Cunningham. Posterior collapse and latent variable non-identifiability.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:5443–5455, 2021

    work page 2021

  63. [66]

    A trust crisis in simulation-based inference? Your posterior approximations can be unfaithful.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022

    Joeri Hermans, Arnaud Delaunoy, Fran¸ cois Rozet, Antoine Wehenkel, Volodimir Begy, and Gilles Louppe. A trust crisis in simulation-based inference? Your posterior approximations can be unfaithful.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022

    work page 2022

  64. [67]

    Particle filters, the “optimal” proposal and high-dimensional systems

    Chris Snyder. Particle filters, the “optimal” proposal and high-dimensional systems. In Proceedings of the ECMWF Seminar on Data Assimilation for Atmosphere and Ocean., pages 1–10, 2011

    work page 2011

  65. [68]

    On particle Gibbs sampling.Bernoulli, 21(3), 2015

    Nicolas Chopin and Sumeetpal S Singh. On particle Gibbs sampling.Bernoulli, 21(3), 2015

    work page 2015

  66. [69]

    Newcastle University, 2023

    Thomas Edward Lowe.Accelerating pseudo-marginal Metropolis-Hastings schemes for stochastic kinetic models. Newcastle University, 2023

    work page 2023

  67. [70]

    Sequential neural likelihood: Fast likelihood-free inference with autoregressive flows

    George Papamakarios, David Sterratt, and Iain Murray. Sequential neural likelihood: Fast likelihood-free inference with autoregressive flows. InThe 22nd international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 837–848. PMLR, 2019

    work page 2019

  68. [71]

    Likelihood-free MCMC with amortized approximate ratio estimators

    Joeri Hermans, Volodimir Begy, and Gilles Louppe. Likelihood-free MCMC with amortized approximate ratio estimators. InInternational conference on Machine Learning, pages 4239–4248. PMLR, 2020

    work page 2020

  69. [72]

    Flow Matching for Generative Modeling

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky TQ Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matt Le. Flow matching for generative modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  70. [73]

    Free-form flows: Make any architecture a normalizing flow

    Felix Draxler, Peter Sorrenson, Lea Zimmermann, Armand Rousselot, and Ullrich K¨ othe. Free-form flows: Make any architecture a normalizing flow. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 2197–2205. PMLR, 2024. 28

    work page 2024

  71. [74]

    Jonas Arruda, Niels Bracher, Ullrich K¨ othe, Jan Hasenauer, and Stefan T. Radev. Diffusion models in simulation-based inference: A tutorial review.arXiv preprint, 2025

    work page 2025

  72. [75]

    De Moivre on the law of normal probability.Smith, David Eugene

    Helen M Walker and M Helen. De Moivre on the law of normal probability.Smith, David Eugene. A Source Book in Mathematics, Dover, pages 64690–4, 1985

    work page 1985

  73. [76]

    Doucet, M

    A. Doucet, M. K. Pitt, G. Deligiannidis, and R. Kohn. Efficient implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo when using an unbiased likelihood estimator.Biometrika, 102(2):295– 313, 2015

    work page 2015

  74. [77]

    Springer Series in Statistics

    Nicolas Chopin and Omiros Papaspiliopoulos.An Introduction to sequential Monte Carlo. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer International Publishing, 2020

    work page 2020

  75. [78]

    Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved ˆRfor assessing convergence of MCMC (with discussion).Bayesian analysis, 16(2), 2021

    Aki Vehtari, Andrew Gelman, Daniel Simpson, Bob Carpenter, and Paul-Christian B¨ urkner. Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved ˆRfor assessing convergence of MCMC (with discussion).Bayesian analysis, 16(2), 2021

    work page 2021

  76. [79]

    Johansen

    Arnaud Doucet and Adam M. Johansen. A tutorial on particle filtering and smoothing: Fifteen years later.Oxford Handbook of Nonlinear filtering, 2008

    work page 2008

  77. [80]

    Doucet, Nando de Freitas, and Neil J

    A. Doucet, Nando de Freitas, and Neil J. Gordon.Sequential Monte Carlo methods in practice. Statistics for Engineering and Information Science. Springer New York, 2001

    work page 2001

  78. [81]

    Douc and O

    R. Douc and O. Cappe. Comparison of resampling schemes for particle filtering.Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis, pages 64–69, 2005

    work page 2005

  79. [82]

    Esayas Kebede Gudina, Solomon Ali, Eyob Girma, Addisu Gize, Birhanemeskel Tegene, Gadissa Bedada Hundie, Wondewosen Tsegaye Sime, Rozina Ambachew, Alganesh Gebrey- ohanns, Mahteme Bekele, Abhishek Bakuli, Kira Elsbernd, Simon Merkt, Lorenzo Contento, Michael Hoelscher, Jan Hasenauer, Andreas Wieser, and Arne Kroidl. Seroepidemiology and model-based predic...

    work page 2021