Scalable Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification in Imaging Inverse Problems via Convex Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a Bayesian uncertainty quantification method for large-scale imaging inverse problems. Our method applies to all Bayesian models that are log-concave, where maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation is a convex optimization problem. The method is a framework to analyze the confidence in specific structures observed in MAP estimates (e.g., lesions in medical imaging, celestial sources in astronomical imaging), to enable using them as evidence to inform decisions and conclusions. Precisely, following Bayesian decision theory, we seek to assert the structures under scrutiny by performing a Bayesian hypothesis test that proceeds as follows: first, it postulates that the structures are not present in the true image, and then seeks to use the data and prior knowledge to reject this null hypothesis with high probability. Computing such tests for imaging problems is generally very difficult because of the high dimensionality involved. A main feature of this work is to leverage probability concentration phenomena and the underlying convex geometry to formulate the Bayesian hypothesis test as a convex problem, which we then efficiently solve by using scalable optimization algorithms. This allows scaling to high-resolution and high-sensitivity imaging problems that are computationally unaffordable for other Bayesian computation approaches. We illustrate our methodology, dubbed BUQO (Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification by Optimization), on a range of challenging Fourier imaging problems arising in astronomy and medicine. MATLAB code for the proposed uncertainty quantification method is available on GitHub.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".