Eq. (6) suggests that the SDE drift corresponding to the score may be broken down into 3 steps: 1. However, in practice this modification creates a "discontinuity" between the constrained and unconstrained components, leading to erroneous correlations between them in the generated samples. "learning rate" that is determined empirically such that the loss value reduces adequately close to zero Thus it needs to be tuned empirically. The correction in Eq. (16) is equivalent to imposing a Gaussian likelihood on Remark 2. The post-processing presented in this section is similar to [ In this section, we present the most relevant components for completeness and better reproducibility. B.2 Sampling The reverse SDE in Eq. (5) used for sampling may be rewritten in terms of denoiser D As stated in 4.1 of the main text, for this The energy-based metrics are already defined in Eq. (12) and Eq.

To address this, we leverage parametric modular structure to learn component-level surrogates, enabling cheaper high-fidelity simulation. We use a neural network to model the stored potential energy in a component given boundary conditions.

Generating dense physical fields from sparse measurements is a fundamental question in sampling, signal processing, and many other applications. State-of-the-art methods either use spatial statistics or rely on examples of dense fields in the training phase, which often are not available, and thus rely on synthetic data. Here, we present a reconstruction method that generates dense fields from sparse measurements, without assuming availability of the spatial statistics, nor of examples of the dense fields. This is made possible through the introduction of an automatically differentiable numerical simulator into the training phase of the method. The method is shown to have superior results over statistical and neural network based methods on a set of three standard problems from fluid mechanics.