4.7 Article

Randomized approaches to accelerate MCMC algorithms for Bayesian inverse problems

Journal

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS
Volume 440, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110391

Keywords

Inverse problems; Randomized algorithms; Bayesian methods; Markov chain Monte Carlo

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [DMS-1720398, DMS-1720305, DMS-1720291, CCF-1934553, 20082019]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper demonstrates how to reduce the computational cost of each log-likelihood evaluation by using randomized techniques and embedding them within MCMC algorithms. The resulting MCMC algorithms are shown to be computationally efficient methods for quantifying uncertainty associated with the reconstructed parameters.
Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approaches are traditionally used for uncertainty quantification in inverse problems where the physics of the underlying sensor modality is described by a partial differential equation (PDE). However, the use of MCMC algorithms is prohibitively expensive in applications where each log-likelihood evaluation may require hundreds to thousands of PDE solves corresponding to multiple sensors; i.e., spatially distributed sources and receivers perhaps operating at different frequencies or wavelengths depending on the precise application. We show how to mitigate the computational cost of each log-likelihood evaluation by using several randomized techniques and embed these randomized approximations within MCMC algorithms. The resulting MCMC algorithms are computationally efficient methods for quantifying the uncertainty associated with the reconstructed parameters. We demonstrate the accuracy and computational benefits of our proposed algorithms on a model application from diffuse optical tomography where we invert for the spatial distribution of optical absorption. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available