SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1812.06212

Adding Constraints to Bayesian Inverse Problems

Abstract

Using observation data to estimate unknown parameters in computational models is broadly important. This task is often challenging because solutions are non-unique due to the complexity of the model and limited observation data. However, the parameters or states of the model are often known to satisfy additional constraints beyond the model. Thus, we propose an approach to improve parameter estimation in such inverse problems by incorporating constraints in a Bayesian inference framework. Constraints are imposed by constructing a likelihood function based on fitness of the solution to the constraints. The posterior distribution of the parameters conditioned on (1) the observed data and (2) satisfaction of the constraints is obtained, and the estimate of the parameters is given by the maximum a posteriori estimation or posterior mean. Both equality and inequality constraints can be considered by this framework, and the strictness of the constraints can be controlled by constraint uncertainty denoting a confidence on its correctness. Furthermore, we extend this framework to an approximate Bayesian inference framework in terms of the ensemble Kalman filter method, where the constraint is imposed by re-weighing the ensemble members based on the likelihood function. A synthetic model is presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method and in both the exact Bayesian inference and ensemble Kalman filter scenarios, numerical simulations show that imposing constraints using the method presented improves identification of the true parameter solution among multiple local minima.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jiacheng Wu, Jian-Xun Wang, Shawn C. Shadden. 2018-12-15. Adding Constraints to Bayesian Inverse Problems. https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.06212

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME