Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Reconstructing Multi-Scale Physical Fields from Extremely Sparse Measurements with an Autoencoder-Diffusion Cascade

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that reconstructing full physical fields from extremely sparse measurements becomes tractable when the problem is split into a deterministic coarse-scale estimate followed by diffusion-based fine-detail generation.

desk verdict A useful engineering pipeline, but the probabilistic overclaiming and the missing baselines make the current evidence weaker than the narrative. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.01572 v3 pith:VIWFMZ7L submitted 2025-12-01 cs.LG cs.AIphysics.app-ph

Letian Yi , Tingpeng Zhang , Mingyuan Zhou , Guannan Wang , Quanke Su , Zhilu Lai This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AIphysics.app-ph MSC 62F1565J2268T07
keywords full-fieldreconstructionsparsesensingdiffusionmodelsfunctionalautoencodermulti-scalephysicalfieldsinverseproblemsuncertaintyquantificationmask-cascadetraining
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Cas-Sensing reframes full-field reconstruction from extremely sparse sensor readings as a hierarchical probabilistic inference problem rather than a direct regression. It introduces an explicit intermediate variable—the coarse-scale structure of the field—and argues that inferring this structure from sparse points is nearly deterministic and well-posed. Once that structure is fixed, a conditional diffusion model only has to generate the fine-scale residual, a much better-conditioned task. The paper reports accurate and stable reconstructions from as little as 0.1–0.5% of measurement points, with generalization across sensor layouts and sparsity levels. If correct, this makes data-driven scientific sensing far more practical under severe sensor scarcity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the explicit coarse-scale intermediate representation m and the factorization p(u|y)=∫p(u|m,y)p(m|y)dm. It is realized by (1) a functional autoencoder whose permutation-invariant average pooling suppresses high-frequency variation and lets it map sparse point sets to a smooth coarse field; (2) a conditional denoising diffusion probabilistic model—a generative model that iteratively denoises noise into data—trained on residuals d=u−m̂(y) under mask-cascade training, which randomizes sparse masks so the model sees diverse imperfect coarse conditions; and (3) manifold-constrained gradient sampling, which injects measurement consistency via Tweedie's formula without le

What would settle it

Construct a class of physical fields where two distinct large-scale configurations produce nearly identical readings at, say, 0.2% sampling—for example, two different flow regimes with the same low-order moments at the sensor points. If a probabilistic coarse-stage model shows bimodal posterior mass while the deterministic autoencoder picks one mode, and Cas-Sensing samples never populate the second mode, the central uniqueness assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that decomposing the posterior p(u|y)=∫p(u|m,y)p(m|y)dm and approximating p(m|y)≈δ(m−m̂(y)) turns one severely ill-posed inverse problem into two tractable subproblems. A neural-operator functional autoencoder, trained with masked inputs and average pooling, maps arbitrary sparse observations to a coarse-scale field with near-zero assumed uncertainty. A conditional diffusion model, trained with mask-cascade randomization, then generates the residual fine-scale detail conditioned on this coarse anchor and the observations. At inference, manifold-constrained gradients enforce measurement consistency while keeping samples on the data manifold. Experiments on cylinder flow,

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that inferring the coarse-scale field from extremely sparse measurements is essentially unique, so a deterministic autoencoder can stand in for the full coarse posterior; if several very different large-scale configurations match the same few readings, the coarse anchor commits to one mode and the diffusion model can only add details around a possibly wrong structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reconstruction quality stays nearly constant from 50% down to roughly 3% observations and degrades only mildly at 0.5–0.1% in the tested datasets.
  • The same trained model handles unseen sensor layouts, geometry variations, and sparsity levels without retraining, because conditioning is provided by the coarse autoencoder rather than a fixed input format.
  • Measurement consistency is enforced during sampling, so the method can be adapted to new sensor configurations at inference time by changing the mask operator.
  • The residual formulation biases outputs to remain near the coarse estimate, so the diffusion model concentrates its capacity on fine detail rather than global structure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the coarse posterior is genuinely unimodal, the cascade should extend to 3D or time-dependent fields by swapping in richer backbones; the paper names these as future directions.
  • The Dirac-delta assumption could be tested directly by training a probabilistic coarse-stage model and checking whether multiple coarse modes emerge at 0.1% sampling; if they do, Cas-Sensing inherits mode collapse.
  • The mask-cascade strategy implies a curriculum effect: training the diffusion model at a lower sampling ratio than deployment makes it robust to ratios below training, and the minimal viable training ratio is a quantitative question worth pinning down.
  • The reported 100-sample RMSE distributions are a practical uncertainty estimate, but they could be calibrated against physical conservation laws to flag reconstructions that are statistically plausible yet dynamically inconsistent.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Cas-Sensing, a two-stage cascade for reconstructing multi-scale physical fields from extremely sparse point measurements. In the first stage, a neural-operator-based functional autoencoder with masked training maps sparse observations y to a deterministic coarse-scale field m_hat(y), justified by approximating p(m|y) as a delta distribution. In the second stage, a conditional DDPM is trained to generate the residual d = u - m_hat conditioned on m_hat, using a mask-cascade training strategy that exposes the model to diverse sparse masks. During inference, a Manifold Constrained Gradient (MCG) term is added to enforce consistency with y. The framework is evaluated on synthetic cylinder flow, stereo sea-surface wave height, and global sea-surface temperature datasets, with RMSE distributions reported across different sparsity ratios. The paper claims that this cascade substantially alleviates ill-posedness and generalizes across sensor layouts and sparsity levels.

Significance. If the central claims held, the decomposition of the posterior p(u|y) into a deterministic coarse-scale stage and a residual diffusion stage would be a useful and extensible framework for sparse scientific sensing. The functional autoencoder is a principled way to handle arbitrary, coordinate-based sparse inputs, and the mask-cascade training is a sensible augmentation for adapting to varying sensor configurations. The experiments span three diverse datasets, which is a strength, and the limitations section is candid. However, the empirical evidence is entirely self-comparative: there are no baselines against direct conditional diffusion, existing sparse-reconstruction methods, or deterministic interpolators. In addition, the MCG term in Eq. (18) is likely numerically inert because of the combination of sigma_c^2=10000 and the small prefactor (1-alpha_t), which undermines the paper's stated mechanism for measurement consistency. With these issues fixed, the framework could be a solid contribution; in its current form the central claims are not fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 (all subsections)] The headline claim that Cas-Sensing 'substantially alleviates ill-posedness' and enables 'accurate and stable reconstructions' is not supported by any comparison to existing methods. All experiments compare Cas-Sensing only with itself at different sparsity levels. There are no baselines such as direct conditional diffusion (i.e., a diffusion model conditioned on y without the coarse stage), FunDiff [42], Voronoi-tessellation deep learning [16], classical compressed sensing, or plain interpolation/pushforward baselines. Without such comparisons, the reader cannot judge whether the cascade adds value over simpler conditional generative approaches, or whether the reported numbers represent genuine progress. Please add baselines trained under the same data and evaluation protocol and report pairwise differences.
  2. [Section 2.3.3, Eq. (18)] The measurement-consistency mechanism is likely inactive. The MCG term enters with prefactor (1-alpha_t)/sigma_c^2. With sigma_c^2=10000 and the linear schedule capping (1-alpha_t) at 0.02, this prefactor is at most 2e-6. Even for observation-gradient norms of order 10^2-10^3, the MCG contribution is orders of magnitude smaller than the denoising update, except possibly in contrived regimes. The experiments report RMSE against ground truth but never report observation residuals at sensor locations, nor an ablation with the MCG term removed. Consequently, the paper's statements that 'manifold-constrained gradients enforce consistency' (Sections 3.1-3.3) are unsupported. Please either rescale sigma_c appropriately, demonstrate numerically that the MCG term actually changes the samples, or drop the claim that measurement consistency is enforced during sampling.
  3. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2)] The delta approximation p(m|y) ≈ delta(m - m_hat(y)) is load-bearing for the entire cascade, but it is justified only heuristically. At 0.1%-0.5% observations, the coarse-scale posterior p(m|y) may itself be multimodal, and the three arguments given (smoothness of m, average pooling, masked training) do not establish unimodality. The paper does not compare against a probabilistic coarse-stage model, nor does it quantify the spread of plausible coarse reconstructions for a fixed y. The RMSE distributions in Figs. 7 and 10 are over random masks for a fixed field, which does not address multimodality across distinct global configurations. If the deterministic stage commits to the wrong mode, the diffusion stage can only add residual details around that incorrect structure. Please add an empirical or theoretical check of the delta approximation, or acknowledge that the method targets the dom
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting issues: 'movale' in Section 2.2, 'condtional' in Section 2.3.3, 'T raining' in Section 2.3, 'fileds' in the Fig. 6 caption, and 'sea evaluation' in Section 3.2 (likely 'sea state'). Please proofread.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Fig. 8 caption] The text says 'impose random masks' and performs 100 reconstructions, but the caption says 'The mask is fixed at each input point ratio.' Please clarify whether the reported uncertainty includes variability due to mask placement or only generative sample variability. This affects the interpretation of the RMSE distributions.
  3. [Notation] The symbol u ∈ R^m is used but likely means the discretized field of dimension M. Also, beta is used both as the diffusion noise variance and as the latent regularization coefficient in Eq. (6), which is confusing. Please disambiguate.
  4. [Section 2.3.2] The mask-cascade training ratio is only described qualitatively as 'significantly lower' than the autoencoder's r_enc. The experiments later state 0.5%, but hyperparameters such as r_enc, latent dimension d_z, beta, training epochs, batch size, learning rate, and the exact mask ratio schedule should be reported for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The delta approximation for p(m|y) is circular because m is defined as the deterministic autoencoder output; the remainder of the cascade is an independent, testable residual-diffusion pipeline.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.1 and Section 2.2, Eq. (2)]
    "At coarse scales, physical fields are dominated by low-frequency, smoothly varying components governed by global constraints, which can be represented with far fewer degrees of freedom than fine-scale fluctuations. As a result, reconstructing m from sparse observations –i.e., modeling p(m|y) – is generally well-posed. ... We model the inverse mapping from sparse observations y to the coarse-scale structure m using a deterministic autoencoder ... As a result, the posterior p(m|y) is highly deterministic, allowing us to approximate it as: p(m|y)≈δ(m−m̂(y)) (2) where δ(·) is a Dirac delta functio"

    The variable m is introduced as a physically meaningful 'coarse-scale component' of u, but it is never defined independently of the network: in Eq. (2), m̂(y) is simply the output of a deterministic autoencoder. Consequently, the claim that p(m|y) is 'highly deterministic' and can be replaced by a delta is true by construction — any deterministic map has a degenerate conditional distribution. The stated physical justification (smoothness of coarse fields, average pooling, masked training) is not what makes p(m|y) a delta; the delta follows from choosing a deterministic model for m. Moreover, Eq. (6) trains the autoencoder to reconstruct the full field u, not an independently defined coarse field, so the 'well-posedness' of the first cascade stage is an artifact of the definition of m rathe

full rationale

The central probabilistic decomposition (Eq. 1) is an exact marginalization identity, and the cascade training/evaluation (mask-cascade conditioning, residual d=u−m̂(y), held-out test sets) does not reduce to a fit of the reported reconstruction metrics. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited functional autoencoder [46], MCG [41], and cascaded diffusion [45] are all external works. The main circular element is the definition of the coarse-scale variable m: because m is identified with the output of a deterministic autoencoder, the Dirac-delta approximation of p(m|y) is guaranteed by construction, and the paper's claim that coarse-scale inference is 'generally well-posed' therefore rests on a definition rather than on physical evidence. This is a real but localized self-definitional step; the full-field reconstruction accuracy is still an empirical, independently testable result, so the overall circularity score is moderate (3/10).

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the heuristic that coarse-scale inference from extremely sparse measurements is deterministic and well-posed; this is not proven and underpins the Dirac-delta reduction. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • r_enc = 0.5 (50%)
    Fraction of points provided to the encoder during functional autoencoder masked training (Section 2.2.2); tunable hyperparameter.
  • β = not stated
    Regularization coefficient in the autoencoder loss (Eq. 6); chosen by hand, no value or sensitivity analysis given.
  • d_z (latent dimension) = 32
    Latent dimension inferred from '32-dimensional latent vectors' (Section 3.1); architectural choice.
  • Diffusion training mask ratio = 0.005 (0.5%)
    Fraction of points fed through the frozen autoencoder during mask-cascade training (Sections 3.1-3.3); hand-set without ablation.
  • σ_c² = 10000
    Variance of measurement noise in the manifold-constrained gradient (Section 2.3.3); set to 10000 in all experiments, no sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Coarse-scale physical fields are dominated by low-frequency, smoothly varying components with few degrees of freedom.
    Section 2.1 states this to justify that modeling p(m|y) is well-posed; no proof offered.
  • domain assumption The posterior p(m|y) is highly deterministic and can be approximated as a Dirac delta.
    Section 2.2, Eq. (2). Assumed so the autoencoder can serve as a point estimator; not verified against a probabilistic alternative.
  • domain assumption Average pooling in the functional autoencoder attenuates high-frequency variations while preserving low-frequency components.
    Section 2.2.1 uses this to claim insensitivity to sampling ratio; heuristic.
  • standard math DDPM noise prediction is equivalent to score matching, and MCG is the projection of the likelihood gradient onto the data manifold.
    Section 2.3.3, citing Song et al. (2020) and Chung et al. (2022); standard results taken as given.
  • standard math Tweedie's formula provides the posterior expectation of d0 given dt.
    Eqs. (16)-(17); classical result.
  • domain assumption A functional autoencoder trained with complement masks generalizes to arbitrary random sparse inputs.
    Central to the claim that coarse-scale inference works under extreme sparsity; justified only by experiments, not theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstructing Multi-Scale Physical Fields from Extremely Sparse Measurements with an Autoencoder-Diffusion Cascade." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VIWFMZ7L

@misc{pith2026251201572,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstructing Multi-Scale Physical Fields from Extremely Sparse Measurements with an Autoencoder-Diffusion Cascade},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VIWFMZ7L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.01572}
}
read the original abstract

Extreme sensor sparsity makes full-field reconstruction a fundamentally ill-posed problem in scientific sensing,where the goal is to infer physical fields from sparse measurements.In this regime,the posterior is severely underconstrained and inherently multimodal,making its approximation highly ill-conditioned.Specifically,deterministic mappings collapse uncertainty,direct conditional learning cannot cover the space of possible observation-conditioned solutions,and likelihood-guided sampling becomes highly sensitive to noise and sensor configurations.These limitations result in unstable posterior estimates and highlight the need for modeling uncertainty in a structural manner.To this end,we propose Cascaded Sensing,a hierarchical framework that restructures posterior inference across scales.Rather than modeling the full-field posterior directly,Cas-Sensing first resolves global structural ambiguity through a deterministic coarse-stage estimator.A neural-operator-based functional autoencoder,trained with masked inputs,maps sparse observations to a coarse-scale structural field,acting analogously to a maximum a posteriori estimator that selects the dominant global configuration.This structural anchor fixes the principal degrees of freedom of the posterior and transforms the problem into a better-conditioned residual inference task.A conditional diffusion model then learns only the refined-scale residual distribution,confining sampling to a stable neighborhood of plausible solutions and suppressing competition among observation-consistent modes.To enhance robustness under varying sensing conditions,we introduce mask-cascade training,which exposes the model to diverse sparse observation patterns through intermediate coarse reconstructions.During inference,manifold-constrained guidance enforces observation consistency as a refinement mechanism rather than a global mode-selection process.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [42]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07902 (2025)

    Wang, S., Dou, Z., Liu, T.-R., Lu, L.: Fundiff: Diffusion models over function spaces for physics-informed generative modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07902 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  2. [16]

    Nature Machine Intelligence3(11), 945–951 (2021)

    Fukami, K., Maulik, R., Ramachandra, N., Fukagata, K., Taira, K.: Global field reconstruction from sparse sensors with voronoi tessellation-assisted deep learning. Nature Machine Intelligence3(11), 945–951 (2021)

    2021

  3. [1]

    Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., Alef, W., Asada, K., Azulay, R., Baczko, A.-K., Ball, D., Balokovi´ c, M., Barrett, J., Bintley, D.,et al.: First m87 event horizon telescope results. iii. data processing and calibration. The Astrophysical Journal Letters875(1), 3 (2019)

    2019

  4. [2]

    Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics13(2), 151–159 (2006)

    Kondrashov, D., Ghil, M.: Spatio-temporal filling of missing points in geophysical data sets. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics13(2), 151–159 (2006)

    2006

  5. [3]

    Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change9(5), 535 (2018)

    Carrassi, A., Bocquet, M., Bertino, L., Evensen, G.: Data assimilation in the geosciences: An overview of methods, issues, and perspectives. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change9(5), 535 (2018)

    2018

  6. [4]

    IEEE Control Systems Magazine38(3), 63–86 (2018)

    Manohar, K., Brunton, B.W., Kutz, J.N., Brunton, S.L.: Data-driven sparse sensor placement for recon- struction: Demonstrating the benefits of exploiting known patterns. IEEE Control Systems Magazine38(3), 63–86 (2018)

    2018

  7. [5]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing48(12), 4285–4295 (2010)

    Alonso, M.T., L´ opez-Dekker, P., Mallorqu ´ ı, J.J.: A novel strategy for radar imaging based on compressive sensing. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing48(12), 4285–4295 (2010)

    2010

  8. [6]

    In: 2014 IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, pp

    Mishra, K.V., Kruger, A., Krajewski, W.F.: Compressed sensing applied to weather radar. In: 2014 IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, pp. 1832–1835 (2014). IEEE 17

    2014

Show all 61 references
  1. [7]

    Nature Reviews Physics5(9), 536–545 (2023)

    Vinuesa, R., Brunton, S.L., McKeon, B.J.: The transformative potential of machine learning for experiments in fluid mechanics. Nature Reviews Physics5(9), 536–545 (2023)

    2023

  2. [8]

    Europhysics Letters142(2), 23001 (2023)

    Buzzicotti, M.: Data reconstruction for complex flows using ai: Recent progress, obstacles, and perspectives. Europhysics Letters142(2), 23001 (2023)

    2023

  3. [9]

    Courier Corporation, San Francisco (2014)

    Hadamard, J.: Lectures on Cauchy’s Problem in Linear Partial Differential Equations. Courier Corporation, San Francisco (2014)

    2014

  4. [10]

    Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis65, 374–406 (2023)

    Breiding, P., Gesmundo, F., Micha lek, M., Vannieuwenhoven, N.: Algebraic compressed sensing. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis65, 374–406 (2023)

    2023

  5. [11]

    IEEE Transactions on information theory52(2), 489–509 (2006)

    Cand` es, E.J., Romberg, J., Tao, T.: Robust uncertainty principles: Exact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information. IEEE Transactions on information theory52(2), 489–509 (2006)

    2006

  6. [12]

    IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement67(1), 185–195 (2017)

    Sun, J., Yan, C., Wen, J.: Intelligent bearing fault diagnosis method combining compressed data acquisition and deep learning. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement67(1), 185–195 (2017)

    2017

  7. [13]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing29, 375–388 (2019)

    Shi, W., Jiang, F., Liu, S., Zhao, D.: Image compressed sensing using convolutional neural network. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing29, 375–388 (2019)

    2019

  8. [14]

    Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering35(7), 685–700 (2020)

    Ni, F., Zhang, J., Noori, M.N.: Deep learning for data anomaly detection and data compression of a long-span suspension bridge. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering35(7), 685–700 (2020)

    2020

  9. [15]

    IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine10(4), 32–69 (2022)

    Xu, G., Zhang, B., Yu, H., Chen, J., Xing, M., Hong, W.: Sparse synthetic aperture radar imaging from compressed sensing and machine learning: Theories, applications, and trends. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine10(4), 32–69 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    Computer Physics Communications308, 109464 (2025)

    Fan, H., Cheng, S., Nazelle, A.J., Arcucci, R.: Vitae-sl: A vision transformer-based autoencoder and spatial interpolation learner for field reconstruction. Computer Physics Communications308, 109464 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    Energy, 134644 (2025)

    Li, Z., Wen, F., Liu, Z., Luo, Y., Zhao, Z., Wen, D., Wang, S.: A novel dual attention network for sparse reconstruction of turbine blade surface fields. Energy, 134644 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence144, 110079 (2025)

    Ghazijahani, M.S., Cierpka, C.: On the spatial prediction of the turbulent flow behind an array of cylinders via echo state networks. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence144, 110079 (2025)

    2025

  13. [20]

    JSTOR (1978)

    Bell, J.B.: Solutions of Ill-Posed Problems. JSTOR (1978)

    1978

  14. [21]

    Acta Numerica28, 1–174 (2019)

    Arridge, S., Maass, P., ¨Oktem, O., Sch¨ onlieb, C.-B.: Solving inverse problems using data-driven models. Acta Numerica28, 1–174 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    Communications of the ACM63(11), 139–144 (2020)

    Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., Bengio, Y.: Generative adversarial networks. Communications of the ACM63(11), 139–144 (2020)

    2020

  16. [23]

    Advances in neural information processing systems33, 6840–6851 (2020)

    Ho, J., Jain, A., Abbeel, P.: Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems33, 6840–6851 (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456 (2020)

    Song, Y., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Kingma, D.P., Kumar, A., Ermon, S., Poole, B.: Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456 (2020)

    2011 arXiv

  18. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Wang, Z., Zhang, Z., Zhang, X., Zheng, H., Zhou, M., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y.: Dr2: Diffusion-based robust degradation remover for blind face restoration. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1704–1713 (2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Miao, Y., Deng, J., Han, J.: Waveface: Authentic face restoration with efficient frequency recovery. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 6583–6592 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Zhao, Y., Hou, T., Su, Y.-C., Jia, X., Li, Y., Grundmann, M.: Towards authentic face restoration with iterative diffusion models and beyond. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 7312–7322 (2023) 18

    2023

  21. [28]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging43(5), 1853–1865 (2024)

    Cao, C., Cui, Z.-X., Wang, Y., Liu, S., Chen, T., Zheng, H., Liang, D., Zhu, Y.: High-frequency space diffusion model for accelerated mri. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging43(5), 1853–1865 (2024)

    2024

  22. [29]

    Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis: Challenges and Applications, 23–44 (2020)

    Yu, B., Wang, Y., Wang, L., Shen, D., Zhou, L.: Medical image synthesis via deep learning. Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis: Challenges and Applications, 23–44 (2020)

    2020

  23. [30]

    Science 386(6723), 9336 (2024)

    Nguyen, E., Poli, M., Durrant, M.G., Kang, B., Katrekar, D., Li, D.B., Bartie, L.J., Thomas, A.W., King, S.H., Brixi, G.,et al.: Sequence modeling and design from molecular to genome scale with evo. Science 386(6723), 9336 (2024)

    2024

  24. [31]

    URL https://arxiv

    Lienen, M., L¨ udke, D., Hansen-Palmus, J., G¨ unnemann, S.: From zero to turbulence: Generative modeling for 3d flow simulation, 2024. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2306.01776

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Advances in neural information processing systems36, 45259–45287 (2023)

    R¨ uhling Cachay, S., Zhao, B., Joren, H., Yu, R.: Dyffusion: A dynamics-informed diffusion model for spatiotemporal forecasting. Advances in neural information processing systems36, 45259–45287 (2023)

    2023

  26. [33]

    Nature Machine Intelligence6(4), 393–403 (2024)

    Li, T., Biferale, L., Bonaccorso, F., Scarpolini, M.A., Buzzicotti, M.: Synthetic lagrangian turbulence by generative diffusion models. Nature Machine Intelligence6(4), 393–403 (2024)

    2024

  27. [34]

    Physics of Fluids31(12) (2019)

    Deng, Z., He, C., Liu, Y., Kim, K.C.: Super-resolution reconstruction of turbulent velocity fields using a generative adversarial network-based artificial intelligence framework. Physics of Fluids31(12) (2019)

    2019

  28. [35]

    Journal of Computational Physics478, 111972 (2023)

    Shu, D., Li, Z., Farimani, A.B.: A physics-informed diffusion model for high-fidelity flow field reconstruction. Journal of Computational Physics478, 111972 (2023)

    2023

  29. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.02938 (2021)

    Choi, J., Kim, S., Jeong, Y., Gwon, Y., Yoon, S.: Ilvr: Conditioning method for denoising diffusion probabilistic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.02938 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  30. [37]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Chung, H., Sim, B., Ye, J.C.: Come-closer-diffuse-faster: Accelerating conditional diffusion models for inverse problems through stochastic contraction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 12413–12422 (2022)

    2022

  31. [38]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34, 13242–13254 (2021)

    Kadkhodaie, Z., Simoncelli, E.: Stochastic solutions for linear inverse problems using the prior implicit in a denoiser. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34, 13242–13254 (2021)

    2021

  32. [39]

    Nature Communications15(1), 10416 (2024)

    Du, P., Parikh, M.H., Fan, X., Liu, X.-Y., Wang, J.-X.: Conditional neural field latent diffusion model for generating spatiotemporal turbulence. Nature Communications15(1), 10416 (2024)

    2024

  33. [40]

    Nature Machine Intelligence6(12), 1566–1579 (2024)

    Li, Z., Han, W., Zhang, Y., Fu, Q., Li, J., Qin, L., Dong, R., Sun, H., Deng, Y., Yang, L.: Learning spatiotemporal dynamics with a pretrained generative model. Nature Machine Intelligence6(12), 1566–1579 (2024)

    2024

  34. [41]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 25683–25696 (2022)

    Chung, H., Sim, B., Ryu, D., Ye, J.C.: Improving diffusion models for inverse problems using manifold constraints. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 25683–25696 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Nichol, A.Q., Dhariwal, P.: Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 8162–8171 (2021). PMLR

    2021

  36. [44]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence45(4), 4713–4726 (2022)

    Saharia, C., Ho, J., Chan, W., Salimans, T., Fleet, D.J., Norouzi, M.: Image super-resolution via iterative refinement. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence45(4), 4713–4726 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research23(47), 1–33 (2022)

    Ho, J., Saharia, C., Chan, W., Fleet, D.J., Norouzi, M., Salimans, T.: Cascaded diffusion models for high fidelity image generation. Journal of Machine Learning Research23(47), 1–33 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01362 (2024)

    Bunker, J., Girolami, M., Lambley, H., Stuart, A.M., Sullivan, T.: Autoencoders in function space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01362 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Scientific reports10(1), 3302 (2020)

    Chai, X., Gu, H., Li, F., Duan, H., Hu, X., Lin, K.: Deep learning for irregularly and regularly missing data reconstruction. Scientific reports10(1), 3302 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Nature Communications15(1), 1834 (2024) 19

    Regazzoni, F., Pagani, S., Salvador, M., Dede’, L., Quarteroni, A.: Learning the intrinsic dynamics of spatio-temporal processes through latent dynamics networks. Nature Communications15(1), 1834 (2024) 19

    2024

  41. [49]

    Communications Physics6(1), 319 (2023)

    Krishnapriyan, A.S., Queiruga, A.F., Erichson, N.B., Mahoney, M.W.: Learning continuous models for continuous physics. Communications Physics6(1), 319 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.03485 (2020)

    Li, Z., Kovachki, N., Azizzadenesheli, K., Liu, B., Bhattacharya, K., Stuart, A., Anandkumar, A.: Neural operator: Graph kernel network for partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.03485 (2020)

    2003 arXiv

  43. [51]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895 (2020)

    Li, Z., Kovachki, N., Azizzadenesheli, K., Liu, B., Bhattacharya, K., Stuart, A., Anandkumar, A.: Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895 (2020)

    2010 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Advances in neural information processing systems33, 7537–7547 (2020)

    Tancik, M., Srinivasan, P., Mildenhall, B., Fridovich-Keil, S., Raghavan, N., Singhal, U., Ramamoorthi, R., Barron, J., Ng, R.: Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimensional domains. Advances in neural information processing systems33, 7537–75...

    2020

  45. [53]

    Nature machine intelligence3(3), 218–229 (2021)

    Lu, L., Jin, P., Pang, G., Zhang, Z., Karniadakis, G.E.: Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nature machine intelligence3(3), 218–229 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    He, K., Chen, X., Xie, S., Li, Y., Doll´ ar, P., Girshick, R.: Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 16000– 16009 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., Toutanova, K.: Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologie...

    2019

  48. [56]

    In: China National Conference on Chinese Computational Linguistics, pp

    Liu, Z., Lin, W., Shi, Y., Zhao, J.: A robustly optimized bert pre-training approach with post-training. In: China National Conference on Chinese Computational Linguistics, pp. 471–484 (2021). Springer

    2021

  49. [57]

    Journal of machine learning research 21(140), 1–67 (2020)

    Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., Liu, P.J.: Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of machine learning research 21(140), 1–67 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    In: Breakthroughs in Statistics: Foundations and Basic Theory, pp

    Robbins, H.E.: An empirical bayes approach to statistics. In: Breakthroughs in Statistics: Foundations and Basic Theory, pp. 388–394. Springer, Berlin (1992)

    1992

  51. [59]

    Journal of machine learning research9(Nov), 2579–2605 (2008)

    Maaten, L.v.d., Hinton, G.: Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research9(Nov), 2579–2605 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    Scientific data7(1), 145 (2020)

    Guimar˜ aes, P.V., Ardhuin, F., Bergamasco, F., Leckler, F., Filipot, J.-F., Shim, J.-S., Dulov, V., Benetazzo, A.: A data set of sea surface stereo images to resolve space-time wave fields. Scientific data7(1), 145 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    https://doi.org/10.48670/ moi-00016 20

    Copernicus Marine Service: Global Ocean Physics Analysis and Forecast (2025). https://doi.org/10.48670/ moi-00016 20

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.