Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Regularization Parameters in High-Dimensional Inverse Problems: An Empirical Bayesian Approach Part I: Methodology and Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many imaging problems require solving an inverse problem that is ill-conditioned or ill-posed. Imaging methods typically address this difficulty by regularizing the estimation problem to make it well- posed. This often requires setting the value of the so-called regularization parameters that control the amount of regularization enforced. These parameters are notoriously difficult to set a priori and can have a dramatic impact on the recovered estimates. In this work, we propose a general empirical Bayesian method for setting regularization parameters in imaging problems that are convex w.r.t. the unknown image. Our method calibrates regularization parameters directly from the observed data by maximum marginal likelihood estimation and can simultaneously estimate multiple regularization parameters. Furthermore, the proposed algorithm uses the same basic operators as proximal optimization algorithms, namely gradient and proximal operators, and it is therefore straightforward to apply to problems that are currently solved by using proximal optimization techniques. Our methodology is demonstrated with a range of experiments and comparisons with alternative approaches from the literature. The considered experiments include image denoising, nonblind image deconvolution, and hyperspectral unmixing, using synthesis and analysis priors involving the $\ell_1$, total-variation, total-variation and $\ell_1$, and total-generalized-variation pseudonorms. A detailed theoretical analysis of the proposed method is presented in our companion paper [V. De Bortoli et al., SIAM J. Imaging Sci., 13 (2020), pp. 1990--2028].
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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".