Noisy independent component analysis of auto-correlated components

We present a new method for the separation of superimposed, independent, auto-correlated components from noisy multi-channel measurement. The presented method simultaneously reconstructs and separates the components, taking all channels into account and thereby increases the effective signal-to-noise ratio considerably, allowing separations even in the high noise regime. Characteristics of the measurement instruments can be included, allowing for application in complex measurement situations. Independent posterior samples can be provided, permitting error estimates on all desired quantities. Using the concept of information field theory, the algorithm is not restricted to any dimensionality of the underlying space or discretization scheme thereof

Stochastic determination of matrix determinants

Matrix determinants play an important role in data analysis, in particular when Gaussian processes are involved. Due to currently exploding data volumes, linear operations - matrices - acting on the data are often not accessible directly but are only represented indirectly in form of a computer routine. Such a routine implements the transformation a data vector undergoes under matrix multiplication. While efficient probing routines to estimate a matrix's diagonal or trace, based solely on such computationally affordable matrix-vector multiplications, are well known and frequently used in signal inference, there is no stochastic estimate for its determinant. We introduce a probing method for the logarithm of a determinant of a linear operator. Our method rests upon a reformulation of the log-determinant by an integral representation and the transformation of the involved terms into stochastic expressions. This stochastic determinant determination enables large-size applications in Bayesian inference, in particular evidence calculations, model comparison, and posterior determination.Comment: 8 pages, 5 figure

Reply to "Comment on `Inference with minimal Gibbs free energy in information field theory'" by Iatsenko, Stefanovska and McClintock

We endorse the comment on our recent paper [En{\ss}lin and Weig, Phys. Rev. E 82, 051112 (2010)] by Iatsenko, Stefanovska and McClintock [Phys. Rev. E 85 033101 (2012)] and we try to clarify the origin of the apparent controversy on two issues. The aim of the minimal Gibbs free energy approach to provide a signal estimate is not affected by their Comment. However, if one wants to extend the method to also infer the a posteriori signal uncertainty any tempering of the posterior has to be undone at the end of the calculations, as they correctly point out. Furthermore, a distinction is made here between maximum entropy, the maximum entropy principle, and the so-called maximum entropy method in imaging, hopefully clarifying further the second issue of their Comment paper.Comment: 1 page, no figures, Reply to Comment pape

The Galactic Faraday depth sky revisited

The Galactic Faraday depth sky is a tracer for both the Galactic magnetic field and the thermal electron distribution. It has been previously reconstructed from polarimetric measurements of extra-galactic point sources. Here, we improve on these works by using an updated inference algorithm as well as by taking into account the free-free emission measure map from the Planck survey. In the future, the data situation will improve drastically with the next generation Faraday rotation measurements from SKA and its pathfinders. Anticipating this, the aim of this paper is to update the map reconstruction method with the latest development in imaging based on information field theory. We demonstrate the validity of the new algorithm by applying it to the Oppermann et al. (2012) data compilation and compare our results to the previous map.\\ Despite using exactly the previous data set, a number of novel findings are made: A non-parametric reconstruction of an overall amplitude field resembles the free-free emission measure map of the Galaxy. Folding this free-free map into the analysis allows for more detailed predictions. The joint inference enables us to identify regions with deviations from the assumed correlations between the free-free and Faraday data, thereby pointing us to Galactic structures with distinguishably different physics. We e.g. find evidence for an alignment of the magnetic field within the line of sights along both directions of the Orion arm.Comment: 16 pages, 15 figure

Optimal Belief Approximation

In Bayesian statistics probability distributions express beliefs. However, for many problems the beliefs cannot be computed analytically and approximations of beliefs are needed. We seek a loss function that quantifies how "embarrassing" it is to communicate a given approximation. We reproduce and discuss an old proof showing that there is only one ranking under the requirements that (1) the best ranked approximation is the non-approximated belief and (2) that the ranking judges approximations only by their predictions for actual outcomes. The loss function that is obtained in the derivation is equal to the Kullback-Leibler divergence when normalized. This loss function is frequently used in the literature. However, there seems to be confusion about the correct order in which its functional arguments, the approximated and non-approximated beliefs, should be used. The correct order ensures that the recipient of a communication is only deprived of the minimal amount of information. We hope that the elementary derivation settles the apparent confusion. For example when approximating beliefs with Gaussian distributions the optimal approximation is given by moment matching. This is in contrast to many suggested computational schemes.Comment: made improvements on the proof and the languag

Diagnostics for insufficiencies of posterior calculations in Bayesian signal inference

We present an error-diagnostic validation method for posterior distributions in Bayesian signal inference, an advancement of a previous work. It transfers deviations from the correct posterior into characteristic deviations from a uniform distribution of a quantity constructed for this purpose. We show that this method is able to reveal and discriminate several kinds of numerical and approximation errors, as well as their impact on the posterior distribution. For this we present four typical analytical examples of posteriors with incorrect variance, skewness, position of the maximum, or normalization. We show further how this test can be applied to multidimensional signals