4.6 Article

SCALABLE OPTIMIZATION-BASED SAMPLING ON FUNCTION SPACE

期刊

SIAM JOURNAL ON SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING
卷 42, 期 2, 页码 A1317-A1347

出版社

SIAM PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.1137/19M1245220

关键词

Markov chain Monte Carlo; Metropolis independence sampling; Bayesian inference; infinite-dimensional inverse problems; transport maps

资金

  1. Gordon Preston Fellowship by the School of Mathematics at Monash University
  2. Australian Research Council [CE140100049]
  3. United States Department of Energy, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, AEOLUS Mathematical Multifaceted Integrated Capability Center
  4. Australian Research Council [CE140100049] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optimization-based samplers such as randomize-then-optimize (RTO) [J. M. Bardsley et al., SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 36 (2014), pp. A1895-A1910] provide an efficient and parallellizable approach to solving large-scale Bayesian inverse problems. These methods solve randomly perturbed optimization problems to draw samples from an approximate posterior distribution. Correcting these samples, either by Metropolization or importance sampling, enables characterization of the original posterior distribution. This paper focuses on the scalability of RTO to problems with high- or infinite-dimensional parameters. In particular, we introduce a new subspace strategy to reformulate RTO. For problems with intrinsic low-rank structures, this subspace acceleration makes the computational complexity of RTO scale linearly with the parameter dimension. Furthermore, this subspace perspective suggests a natural extension of RTO to a function space setting. We thus formalize a function space version of RTO and establish sufficient conditions for it to produce a valid Metropolis-Hastings proposal, yielding dimension-independent sampling performance. Numerical examples corroborate the dimension independence of RTO and demonstrate sampling performance that is also robust to small observational noise.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据