How do score-based diffusion models compare to traditional Bayesian inference in computational speed for parameter recovery?

The provided preprints don't directly address computational speed comparisons between score-based diffusion models and traditional Bayesian inference for parameter recovery—they focus on generative modeling, physics simulation, and specialized applications like gravitational-wave analysis rather than a head-to-head benchmark of these two inference paradigms.

That said, I can point to what's nearby in the archive:

On Bayesian inference speed: References [AG-2024.05-271] and [AG-2025.04-575] describe *neural variational inference* with normalizing flows, which is a modern Bayesian method that accelerates posterior sampling by orders of magnitude compared to traditional Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Variational inference can analyze pulsar-timing datasets in "tens of minutes" on GPUs versus "hours or days" with standard samplers [AG-2024.05-271], and it requires as few as ~10³ likelihood evaluations for gravitational-wave population inference [AG-2025.04-575].

On diffusion models for inference: The archive emphasizes diffusion models primarily as *generative* tools (image synthesis, detector simulation, field reconstruction), not classical parameter estimation. Reference [AG-2025.02-070] does use diffusion for an inverse problem (reconstructing mass maps from noisy data), but doesn't compare speed to Bayesian methods.

To answer your question properly, you'd need preprints that benchmark diffusion-based parameter estimation directly against variational inference or MCMC on the same inference tasks—which aren't in this collection.