Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper derives the Exact Posterior Score (EPS) for linear Gaussian inverse problems, enabling efficient posterior sampling by utilizing a denoising framework. The method maintains the input/output structure of standard pretraining, allowing it to be trained from scratch or fine-tuned from existing models. Evaluations on five linear inverse problems demonstrate that EPS significantly outperforms both training-free and training-based baselines in terms of fidelity and perceptual metrics, while requiring substantially fewer denoiser evaluations than traditional gradient-based approaches.
Achieving superior performance in linear inverse problems, EPS reduces denoiser evaluations by an order of magnitude compared to conventional methods.
Diffusion and flow-based models learn powerful data priors by training a denoiser to reverse Gaussian corruption. To use this prior to solve a linear inverse problem, one needs to sample from the posterior, but the score that the prior provides is the unconditional score, not the posterior score. Existing methods either steer a fixed pretrained denoiser with approximate measurement-matching corrections, or train a conditional restoration model that abandons the denoising structure of the prior. We derive the exact posterior score in closed form for linear Gaussian inverse problems under general Gaussian interpolants, and show that posterior sampling reduces to a denoising problem at an operator-dependent shifted pivot under an anisotropic noise covariance. We turn this identity into Exact Posterior Score (EPS), a denoising training objective that preserves the input/output structure of standard pretraining and can therefore be trained from scratch or fine-tuned from a pretrained denoiser. At inference, EPS uses the same sampler as the underlying backbone, with no likelihood gradients or projections. We evaluate EPS on five linear inverse problems across FFHQ and ImageNet, where it outperforms training-free and training-based baselines on fidelity, perceptual, and distributional metrics, while using roughly an order of magnitude fewer denoiser evaluations than gradient-based posterior samplers.
