Uncertainty quantification for inverse problems with weak partial-differential-equation constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In statistical inverse problems, the objective is a complete statistical description of unknown parameters from noisy observations to quantify uncertainties in unknown parameters. We consider inverse problems with partial-differential-equation (PDE) constraints, which are applicable to many seismic problems. Bayesian inference is one of the most widely used approaches to precisely quantify statistics through a posterior distribution, incorporating uncertainties in observed data, modeling kernel, and prior knowledge of parameters. Typically when formulating the posterior distribution, the PDE constraints are required to be exactly satisfied, resulting in a highly nonlinear forward map and a posterior distribution with many local maxima. These drawbacks make it difficult to find an appropriate approximation for the posterior distribution. Another complicating factor is that traditional Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods are known to converge slowly for realistically sized problems. To overcome these drawbacks, we relax the PDE constraints by introducing an auxiliary variable, which allows for Gaussian errors in the PDE and yields a bilinear posterior distribution with weak PDE constraints that is more amenable to uncertainty quantification because of its special structure. We determine that for a particular range of variance choices for the PDE misfit term, the new posterior distribution has fewer modes and can be well-approximated by a Gaussian distribution, which can then be sampled in a straightforward manner. Because it is prohibitively expensive to explicitly construct the dense covariance matrix of the Gaussian approximation for problems with more than 105 unknowns, we have developed a method to implicitly construct it, which enables efficient sampling. We apply this framework to 2D seismic inverse problems with 1800 and 92,455 unknown parameters. The results illustrate that our framework can produce comparable statistical quantities with those produced by conventional MCMC-type methods while requiring far fewer PDE solves, which are the main computational bottlenecks in these problems.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".