Comparing variational Bayes with Markov chain Monte Carlo for Bayesian computation in neuroimaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we consider methods for Bayesian computation within the context of brain imaging studies. In such studies, the complexity of the resulting data often necessitates the use of sophisticated statistical models; however, the large size of these data can pose significant challenges for model fitting. We focus specifically on the neuroelectromagnetic inverse problem in electroencephalography, which involves estimating the neural activity within the brain from electrode-level data measured across the scalp. The relationship between the observed scalp-level data and the unobserved neural activity can be represented through an underdetermined dynamic linear model, and we discuss Bayesian computation for such models, where parameters represent the unknown neural sources of interest. We review the inverse problem and discuss variational approximations for fitting hierarchical models in this context. While variational methods have been widely adopted for model fitting in neuroimaging, they have received very little attention in the statistical literature, where Markov chain Monte Carlo is often used. We derive variational approximations for fitting two models: a simple distributed source model and a more complex spatiotemporal mixture model. We compare the approximations to Markov chain Monte Carlo using both synthetic data as well as through the analysis of a real electroencephalography dataset examining the evoked response related to face perception. The computational advantages of the variational method are demonstrated and the accuracy associated with the resulting approximations are clarified.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".