Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

A conditional score-based diffusion network trained only on unconditional spatial simulations can draw from predictive distributions for any observed pattern and parameter range, and outperforms MCMC on Brown–Resnick extremes.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Neural conditional simulation trains a masked diffusion model on unconditional spatial field samples to draw from predictive distributions, demonstrated on Gaussian and Brown–Resnick processes.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A plausible and useful method, but the theory under Eq. (7) is thinner than it looks and the Brown–Resnick validation is indirect; still worth serious peer review. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.20067 v3 pith:JQJWOJOR submitted 2025-08-27 stat.ME stat.ML

Neural Conditional Simulation for Complex Spatial Processes

Julia Walchessen , Andrew Zammit-Mangion , Rapha\"el Huser , Mikael Kuusela This is my paper
classification stat.ME stat.ML MSC 62M3060G70
keywords neural conditional simulationscore-based diffusion modelsspatial extremesBrown–Resnick processamortized inferencesimulation-based inferenceuncertainty quantificationmasked diffusion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper introduces neural conditional simulation (NCS), a diffusion-model method for sampling from the predictive distribution of a spatial process at unobserved locations given observations at other locations. A diffusion model is a generative network that learns to reverse a gradual noising process; here it is made conditional by masking observed locations and optionally supplying parameters, and it is trained with unconditional simulations only. The authors show on a Gaussian process that NCS reproduces exact predictive distributions, and on a Brown–Resnick max-stable process for spatial extremes that it is more accurate and faster than standard Markov chain Monte Carlo approximations in most settings, with per-draw cost essentially constant in the number of observations. If the central claim holds, NCS makes spatial prediction and uncertainty quantification feasible for non-Gaussian models whose conditional distributions cannot be sampled directly.

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that the family of predictive distributions p(x~0 | x°0; θ) can be learned without ever drawing a conditional sample. The training loss in Eq. (7) averages a score-matching objective over random masks of observed locations, random process parameters, random unconditional realizations, and diffusion times; the only score it ever needs is the Gaussian transition kernel p(x~t | x0), which is known in closed form. The same network is then inserted into the discretized reverse SDE in Eq. (9), and the paper claims the resulting draws are samples from the true predictive distribution for any conditioning set and parameter value represented during training. On a 32x32 Gauss

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the conditional score function ∇x~t log p(x~t | x°0), approximated by a U-Net (a convolutional encoder-decoder with skip connections). The network takes two input channels—the partially diffused field and a binary mask marking observed locations—and, in the parameter-amortized variant, a parameter-scaled mask; it outputs the score on unobserved coordinates and zero on observed ones. Training uses Eq. (7), the averaged conditional score-matching loss, so only unconditional simulations are needed. At generation time, the learned score is plugged into Eq. (9), the discretized reverse SDE, and white noise is evolved into a conditional draw.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a score network that minimizes the conditional score-matching loss averaged over masks and parameters also gives an accurate conditional score for each individual mask–parameter pair; the paper cites this 'average optimality property' but does not prove it or verify it per conditioning set for its U-Net.

What would settle it

Train the same NCS construction on a Gaussian process with known predictive distributions for a wide range of conditioning sets and parameters. At a held-out mask-parameter pair, draw many NCS samples and compare the full joint distribution with an exact conditional sample via energy distance or a two-sample test. If the held-out error is large while the averaged training loss is small, the average-optimality transfer fails; the same test locates the edge cases the paper already flags.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • NCS applies to any spatial process one can simulate unconditionally, converting an unconditional simulator into a conditional one without deriving predictive densities.
  • Per-draw cost stays flat as the number of observed sites grows, so conditioning sets that break Gibbs samplers become routine.
  • A single trained network handles varying observation proportions over [0.01, 0.5] and range parameters over [1, 5], so repeated prediction tasks need no retraining.
  • In the Brown–Resnick study, NCS captures high-dimensional diagnostics such as extremal correlation and joint minima/maxima that the standard MCMC approximation misses at short ranges.
  • The Gaussian-process validation indicates the method recovers first and second moments of the exact predictive distribution, not just visually plausible fields.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The average-optimality property implies a worst-case diagnostic the paper does not run: plot per-conditioning-set predictive error against the averaged training loss to locate masks and parameters where the amortized score degrades. This would also clarify the reported edge-case inaccuracy at seven observations and large range.
  • Because the convolution architecture requires a fixed grid, a permutation-equivariant network would extend the method to irregular observation networks; the masking idea does not itself depend on gridded data.
  • Joint amortization over both parameters and observation proportion is mentioned as a future possibility; a concrete test would train one network over the product space and measure accuracy near the corners of the training rectangle.
  • The FCS baseline itself is imperfect (negative bias at short range), so a cleaner falsification would compare NCS to an independent sampling scheme for max-stable processes, such as direct extremal-function simulation, rather than only to MCMC.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes neural conditional simulation (NCS), a score-based diffusion method for sampling from spatial predictive distributions p(\tilde{x}_0 | \hat{x}_0; \theta). The forward and reverse SDEs are defined on the unobserved locations only, and the conditional score is approximated by a U-Net trained with a masked, parameter-averaged denoising score-matching loss (Eq. 7). Training requires only unconditional simulations from the spatial process, and the trained network is amortized over conditioning masks, observed values, and (for one U-Net) the range parameter. The method is validated on a Gaussian process, where the predictive distribution is known, and on a Brown--Resnick process, where NCS conditional simulations are compared with full and local conditional simulation via the SpatialExtremes package. The paper claims NCS is more accurate and computationally efficient than MCMC-based FCS/LCS, and demonstrates an application to Red Sea extremes.

Significance. If the central claim holds, NCS would be a valuable contribution: it offers amortized conditional simulation for spatial models that are easy to simulate unconditionally but hard to simulate conditionally, which covers many non-Gaussian spatial process models. The idea of combining masking, diffusion score matching, and amortization is natural and timely. The paper also contains useful empirical comparisons, including the Gaussian sanity check and a Brown--Resnick case study, and it openly discusses the 'necessary but not sufficient' nature of its validation. These strengths make the manuscript worth serious consideration. However, the central theoretical premise—that minimizing the averaged loss in Eq. (7) yields correct conditional scores for every mask/parameter pair—is not established, and the Brown--Resnick validation mostly uses unconditional summary metrics that are only indirect evidence for predictive accuracy. These issues are fixable but need to be addressed before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (7), Sec. 2.3] The derivation of Eq. (7) invokes an 'average optimality property for non-negative loss functions' cited to Zammit-Mangion et al. (2025). Non-negativity of the loss alone does not imply that a minimizer of the averaged loss is a minimizer of each conditional loss. That implication requires either that the network family is sufficiently rich to represent the true conditional score for every conditioning task and that the averaged loss attains its global minimum at zero, or some other identifiability condition. The paper provides no such proof and does not check whether the reduced NCSN++ U-Net of Sec. 2.5 is well-specified for the Brown--Resnick conditional scores. Without this, the network trained by Eq. (7) may approximate a mixture of conditional scores, and the reverse SDE (9) may target a distribution other than p(\tilde{x}_0 | \hat{x}_0; \theta). The Gaussian validation in Supp. S3
  2. [Sec. 3 and Sec. 2.6] The Brown--Resnick evaluation mainly compares NCS against FCS/LCS using (i) unconditional summaries (extremal correlation, minimum, maximum, absolute sum) constructed by concatenating NCS conditional draws with the observed field, and (ii) low-dimensional conditional densities at selected locations. As the paper admits in Sec. 2.6, passing such checks is necessary but not sufficient for the conditional simulations to be correct. The conclusion that NCS is 'more accurate' than FCS/LCS for the predictive distributions themselves is therefore not directly supported. The FCS comparisons in Sec. 3.2 show a known negative bias for small range, and the conditional density comparisons in Fig. 4 are qualitative and limited to a few locations. I would like to see a direct calibration or scoring-rule comparison on held-out conditional data—e.g., coverage of prediction intervals, energy scores, or m
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 2] The computational-efficiency claim is overstated in places. The measured average times for seven observations are 28 seconds for FCS and 27 seconds for NCS, which are essentially equal on the reported hardware (GPU vs CPU, so not directly comparable). The paper argues that FCS will scale exponentially beyond seven observations, but this is extrapolation, not a measured result. The efficiency advantage of NCS is plausible because of amortization, but the central claim 'more efficient' should be supported by actual timings for configurations where FCS is still feasible, or by a scaling experiment with an alternative MCMC implementation. As written, the abstract's 'more efficient and accurate' is too strong relative to the evidence in Sec. 3.2.
  4. [Sec. 2.5, Eq. (11)] The architecture section sets the output to zero for all observed locations, which enforces the constraint that the score component for observed locations is unused. This is a reasonable implementation choice, but it changes the function class of the network and could interact with the average-optimality property in Eq. (7). The paper does not discuss whether this architectural restriction preserves the ability to represent the true conditional score on the unobserved subvector. At minimum, the authors should state whether the zero-output constraint is part of the score-matching objective or only used at sampling time, and whether it affects the theoretical justification of Eq. (7).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says NCS is 'more efficient and accurate' than classical MCMC techniques. Given the timing results in Sec. 3.2 (28 vs 27 seconds for the feasible comparison) and the indirect validation, a more nuanced phrasing is advised, e.g., 'can be more efficient and accurate in settings where MCMC is feasible, and remains feasible where MCMC is not.'
  2. [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (7)] The notation in Eq. (7) is dense: the subscript on the loss norm is ambiguous, and the transition from the second to the third line is stated to follow from 'the same argument as (4)' but the conditioning on x0 is not made explicit. Please spell out the conditional version of the Vincent (2011) identity, because this is the core of the method.
  3. [Sec. 2.4, Eq. (8)-(10)] The notation \tilde{\epsilon}_t is used for both the noise in Eq. (8) and the target in the denoising loss; please distinguish these. Also, \sigma_t^2 = 1 - \alpha_t appears to be inconsistent with the usual definition \sigma_t^2 = 1 - \bar{\alpha}_t; please check.
  4. [Sec. 2.6] The validation section is well conceived, but the statement 'passing these checks is a necessary but not sufficient condition' is important and should be echoed in the conclusion. The current wording in Sec. 4 ('we gave empirical evidence that the NCS-approximated conditional simulations are accurate') is too strong given this caveat.
  5. [Sec. 2.2] There is a typo 'xT ˙∼ N(0, I)' using a dot under the symbol; use the standard notation '\sim' or '\approx'. Also, 'pref(x) := N (0, I)' omits the dimension n; it should be N(0, I_n).
  6. [General] The paper would benefit from a reproducibility statement or link to code. The methods section contains many implementation details, but no code is provided; given the methodological nature of the paper, this would strengthen the contribution.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The central training objective in Eq. (7) rests on a self-cited 'average optimality property' that is not proved in the paper; however, the method is also validated against external simulators and MCMC, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.3, Eq. (7)]
    "Consider a distribution over the observed locations, p(˚S), that has positive mass over the set of all possible partitions of S. By the average optimality property for non-negative loss functions (Zammit-Mangion et al., 2025), the modified score matching algorithm is given by: ..."

    The paper does not derive this property; it cites the authors' own review (Zammit-Mangion, Sainsbury-Dale, and Huser) as the authority. This property is the sole justification for replacing per-conditioning-set score-matching losses with an average over masks, observations, and parameters. Non-negativity alone does not imply that a minimizer of the average loss is a minimizer of every conditional loss unless the model class contains the true conditional score for each conditioning set and the average optimum attains zero loss. The paper provides no proof of well-specification for the reduced NCSN++ U-Net, and the cited property is not established in the text. Since Eq. (7) defines the training objective for the score network used in the reverse SDE (9), the central claim that NCS samples f

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is mostly self-contained: the unconditional score-matching loss in Eq. (4) is standard, the conditional modification in Eqs. (5)-(9) follows the diffusion-model framework, and the training data are unconditional simulations, not fits to the target predictive distributions. The main circularity concern is the unproved 'average optimality property' invoked in Eq. (7) and attributed to the authors' own review. This property is load-bearing because it justifies the averaged training objective, and the paper does not prove it or check the required representational conditions for the specific U-Net. However, the central empirical claim is not reduced to the self-citation: the Gaussian case study validates NCS against the true predictive distribution, and the Brown-Resnick comparisons use an external MCMC implementation, even though the latter is an approximation rather than ground truth. The paper also honestly notes in Section 2.6 that passing its validation checks is 'necessary but not sufficient.' Overall, the derivation has independent content and external checks, but the theoretical linchpin relies on an unverified self-citation, warranting a moderate circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method's theoretical core reuses standard score-matching and diffusion results; the only paper-specific load-bearing premise is the average optimality theorem and the assumption that a U-Net trained on averaged losses transfers across conditioning sets and parameters. The hand-chosen schedule, mask distribution, and hyperparameters are tuning choices, not fitted parameters of the claimed predictive distribution.

free parameters (6)
  • diffusion noise schedule beta_t = beta(t) = 0.0001 + 0.0199 t/T, T = 1000
    Hand-chosen VPSDE schedule; the balance of noise steps affects sample quality but not the method's validity.
  • score-matching weight lambda(t) = lambda(t) = 1 - alpha_t
    Adopted from Song et al. (2021); a standard weighting, chosen rather than derived for this problem.
  • U-Net size reduction = 2 blocks per path, 64 Gaussian Fourier projections
    Manual reduction from NCSN++ to cut training time; may trade off fidelity.
  • training mask distribution p(S_obs) = Bernoulli with rho ~ U[0.01, 0.525] for proportion U-Net; rho = 0.05 for parameter U-Net; uniform counts 1..10 for small
    User-specified distribution over conditioning sets; if it mismatches the evaluation conditioning pattern, amortization degrades (the paper notes performance drops at rho = 0.01).
  • training parameter range extension = lambda ~ U[0.5, 5.5] (Gaussian), lambda ~ U[evaluation range extended] (Brown–Resnick), rho up to 0.525
    Chosen to avoid boundary effects; part of the amortization setup.
  • training hyperparameters = learning rate, batch size (512 or 2048), epochs per draw (10), number of draws (10 or 40), etc.
    Selected by experimentation; the paper reports no sensitivity analysis except a comment that amortized variables should be continuous and positive.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Reverse-time SDE exists for the forward diffusion (Anderson, 1982)
    Foundation of score-based diffusion; used in Eq. (3) and (6b).
  • standard math Denoising score matching loss equals explicit score matching for the transition kernels (Vincent, 2011; Song et al., 2021)
    Used to obtain tractable loss (4) and (7).
  • domain assumption Average optimality property for non-negative loss functions (Zammit-Mangion et al., 2025)
    Bridges the averaged loss in Eq. (7) to correct conditional scores for each mask; this is cited, not proved, and authors overlap with the cited work.
  • domain assumption Discretized DDPM/VPSDE reverse step (9) approximates the continuous reverse SDE when beta_t is small
    Reliance on standard diffusion discretization; no convergence analysis for the conditional setting given the U-Net error.
  • domain assumption The spatial domain is restricted to a regular grid so that CNNs can be used
    Section 2.5 restricts S to regular grid points; irregular locations are out of scope.
  • domain assumption theta is known when simulating from the predictive distribution
    Section 2.1 states theta is known, with plug-in theta-hat in practice; parameter uncertainty is ignored.
  • domain assumption The log-transform from unit Frechet to Gumbel is treated as the modeling scale; conditional simulation on the transformed scale is the target
    Brown–Resnick training is on log-transformed data (Section 3.1); the paper validates on the Gumbel scale.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neural Conditional Simulation for Complex Spatial Processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JQJWOJOR

@misc{pith2026250820067,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neural Conditional Simulation for Complex Spatial Processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JQJWOJOR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20067}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

A key objective in spatial statistics is to simulate from the distribution of a spatial process at a selection of unobserved locations conditional on observations (i.e., a predictive distribution) to enable spatial prediction and uncertainty quantification. However, exact conditional simulation from this predictive distribution is intractable or inefficient for many spatial process models. In this paper, we propose neural conditional simulation (NCS), a general method for spatial conditional simulation that is based on neural diffusion models. Specifically, using spatial masks, we implement a conditional score-based diffusion model that evolves Gaussian noise into samples from a predictive distribution when given a partially observed spatial field and spatial process parameters as inputs. The diffusion model relies on a neural network that only requires unconditional samples from the spatial process for training. Once trained, the diffusion model is amortized with respect to the observations in the partially observed field, the number and locations of those observations, and the spatial process parameters, and can therefore be used to conditionally simulate from a broad class of predictive distributions without retraining the neural network. We assess the NCS-generated simulations against simulations from the true conditional distribution of a Gaussian process model, and against Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations from a Brown--Resnick process model for spatial extremes. In the latter case, we show that it is more efficient and accurate to conditionally simulate using NCS than classical MCMC techniques. We also demonstrate the use of NCS to predict spatial extremes in the Red Sea. We conclude that NCS enables efficient and accurate conditional simulation from spatial predictive distributions that are challenging to sample from using traditional methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20067 by Andrew Zammit-Mangion, Julia Walchessen, Mikael Kuusela, Rapha\"el Huser.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Extremal correlation χ(h) as a function of distance (top row), and the empirical distri￾butions of the spatial minimum (second row), maximum (third row), and absolute sum (fourth row) for the true (blue), NCS-approximated (orange), and FCS-approximated (purple) uncondi￾tional distributions of a Brown–Resnick process with smoothness ν = 1.5 and range λ = 1 (left panel) and λ = 5 (right panel) for one, three… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The ratio of the time needed for conditional simulation with a varying number of obser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left panel: NCS with a Brown–Resnick process with smoothness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: Predictive densities of a Brown–Resnick process with smoothness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Extremal correlation χ(h) as a function of distance (top row), and the empirical distribu￾tions of the spatial minimum (second row), maximum (third row), and absolute sum (fourth row) for the true (blue) and the NCS-approximated (orange) unconditional distributions of a Brown– Resnick process with observed proportion ρ = .05, smoothness ν = 1.5, and range λ ∈ {1, 3, 5} (left panel, from left to right); and… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A Non-stationary, Amortized, Transfer Learning Approach for Modeling Italian Air Quality

    stat.AP 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A neural network learns non-stationary anisotropic correlations from gridded CTM outputs and transfers the structure via LatticeKrig basis functions to station data for refined fine-scale NO2 predictions with uncertainty.

  2. Can Deep Generative Models Reproduce Non-Stationary Gaussian Random Fields?

    stat.ML 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    On a known non-stationary Gaussian random field, DDPM and score-SDE reproduce the covariance structure best, flow matching mildly attenuates it, and the VAE largely fails.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Anderson, B. D. (1982). Reverse-time diffusion equation models. Stochastic Processes and their Applications 12 (3), 313–326. Balakrishnan, N. (2014). Continuous Multivariate Distributions . John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Banerjee, S., B. Carlin, and A. Gelfand (2014). Hierarchical Modeling and Analysis for Spatial Data. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1982

  2. [2]

    −1 such that ˜ϵ ∼ N(˜0, ˜I) = σ2 t = 1 − αt. (S9) Spatial Process Parameters For the parameter U-Net, we consider the parameter space Θ = [1 , 5] × {1.5} in which ν = 1 .5 is fixed for both processes and length scale ℓ and range λ vary from one to five for the Gaussian process and Brown–Resnick process, respectively. The training parameter space ˜Θ—the pa...

    work page 2018

  3. [8]

    To emphasize the connection between denoising diffusion probabilistic models (DDPM) and the VPSDE framework for score-based diffusion, we start our derivations from the forward and reverse processes of a DDPM (Ho et al., 2020; Chan, 2025). The discretized forward process of a 3 DDPM is xt+1 ≈ p 1 − βtxt + p βtϵ, ϵ ∼ N(0, I) xt+1 ≈ 1 − βt 2 + O(β2 t ) xt +...

    work page 2020

  4. [11]

    Danelljan, A

    32 Lugmayr, A., M. Danelljan, A. Romero, F. Yu, R. Timofte, and L. Van Gool (2022). Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pp. 11461–11471. Padoan, S. A., M. Ribatet, and S. A. Sisson (2010). Likelihood-based Inference for Max- Stable...

    work page 2022

  5. [31]

    Curran Asso- ciates, Inc. Chan, S. H. (2025). Tutorial on Diffusion Models for Imaging and Vision . Now Foundation and Trends. Cranmer, K., J. Brehmer, and G. Louppe (2020). The Frontier of Simulation-Based Infer- ence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (48), 30055–30062. Dalmasso, N., R. Izbicki, and A. Lee (2020, 13–18 Jul). Confidence...

    work page 2025

  6. [322]

    ˜x0,i ∼ ˜p0(· |˚x0,i, θ) for ˚x0,i = M ( ˚Si,0) ⊙ x0,i and NCS/LCS distribution ˜p0(· |˚x0,i, θ) Deval ← Deval ∪ {[˚x0,i, ˜x0,i]} end for Return Deval = {[˚x0,i, ˜x0,i]}i∈[m] { ˜x0,i}i∈[m] with NCS and FCS—an MCMC approximation described in Section 3.1. Unconditional Evaluation Dataset (Parameter and Proportion U-Net) We ap- ply the process described in S...

    work page 1992

  7. [1985]

    Different types of max-stable processes arise from the selection of the non-negative process Wi(s)

    Z(s) = max i>0 ηiWi(s), for s on a domain D ⊂Rd, (S7) in which {ηi} is a Poisson point process on (0 , ∞) with intensity function dΛ( η) = η−2 dη and Wi(s) are independent copies of a non-negative stochastic process with mean one (Kabluchko et al., 2009). Different types of max-stable processes arise from the selection of the non-negative process Wi(s). F...

    work page 2009

  8. [2012]

    Jain, and P

    Ho, J., A. Jain, and P. Abbeel (2020). Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, and H. Lin (Eds.), Advances in 31 Neural Information Processing Systems , Volume 33, pp. 6840–6851. Curran Associates, Inc. Huser, R. and A. C. Davison (2014). Space–time modelling of extreme events. Journal of the Royal St...

    work page 2020

  9. [2024]

    Quan, W., J. Chen, Y. Liu, D.-M. Yan, and P. Wonka (2024, January). Deep learning-based image and video inpainting: a survey. International Journal of Computer Vision 132 (7), 2367–2400. Ribatet, M. (2020). SpatialExtremes: Modelling Spatial Extremes . R package version 2.0-9. Richards, J., M. Sainsbury-Dale, A. Zammit-Mangion, and R. Huser (2024). Neural...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [2048]

    Additionally, amortization is highly effective

    S3.2 Validation Visualizations In Figure S1, the simulations from the true and predictive distributions do not match exactly, as expected; however, they display similar spatial patterns and seamlessly incorporate the partially observed field as intended. Additionally, amortization is highly effective. As length scale increases in the left subfigure, the s...

    work page 2020

  11. [2065]

    Bottou, Y

    LeCun, Y., L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner (1998). Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE 86 (11), 2278–2324. Lenzi, A., J. Bessac, J. Rudi, and M. L. Stein (2023). Neural networks for parameter esti- mation in intractable models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 185 , 107762. Linhart, J., A. Gramfort...

    work page 1998

  12. [5090]

    Davison, A. C. and R. Huser (2015). Statistics of extremes. Annual Review of Statistics and its Application 2 (1), 203–235. 30 Davison, A. C., S. A. Padoan, and M. Ribatet (2012). Statistical Modeling of Spatial Extremes. Statistical Science 27 (2), 161–186. de Haan, L. (1985). Extremes in Higher Dimensions: the Model and Some Statistics . Report. Econome...

    work page 2015

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.