Posterior contraction rates of computational methods for Bayesian data assimilation

Erik Burman; Mingfei Lu

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Posterior contraction rates of computational methods for Bayesian data assimilation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Finite-element priors built directly on the mesh recover the optimal posterior contraction rate for elliptic data assimilation without assuming the truth lies in the prior's support.

desk verdict Genuinely useful FE-prior construction, but the main theorem's polynomial-degree condition is load-bearing wrong and the displayed exponents are typos; fixable, worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14685 v1 pith:SJWNAU3F submitted 2025-06-17 math.NA cs.NAmath.PRmath.STstat.TH

Erik Burman , Mingfei Lu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NAmath.PRmath.STstat.TH MSC 65N3062F1565J2235R30

keywords posteriorcontractionBayesiandataassimilationfiniteelementuniquecontinuationMAPestimatordiscretepriorsill-posedinverseproblemsconsistency

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proves that a Bayesian data assimilation problem, posed as an ill-posed elliptic inverse problem with unique continuation, can be discretized with finite elements while keeping the optimal posterior contraction rate of the continuous theory. The key is to construct the prior directly on the finite element space, with penalties on regularity and on the PDE residual, rather than discretizing a continuous Gaussian prior. Under a coupling between mesh size h and sample size N, the MAP estimator and posterior mean converge to the ground truth at rate roughly (σ²/(N l_N))^{ατ/(2α+d)} in the L2(B) norm, matching the continuous rate and requiring only H^α∩$C^{0}$ regularity with α>1. This matters because standard finite element spaces are not contained in the Cameron-Martin space of typical priors, so naive discretization can degrade or destroy posterior consistency.

What carries the argument

The central object is a tailor-made discrete Gaussian prior on the finite element space, whose density penalizes three things through the parameter β: a regularity seminorm ||h^β uh||_{V_h} involving jumps of normal gradients across facets; element-wise L2 penalties on $h^{{1+β}}$(-Δuh - fh); and a dual-norm penalty ||h^β(-Δuh - f)||_{W*_h} enforcing the PDE in a weak sense. Working with the associated triple norm |||v|||$_β^{2}$ = (1/N)||v||_{Σ-1}^2 + s_h(h^β v, h^β v) + ||h^β Δv||_{W*_h}^2, the proof splits the error into a deterministic mean-error part (interpolation plus PDE residual, controlled by finite element approximation estimates) and a stochastic variance part (controlled by a matrix Chernoff bound on the empirical Gram matrix restricted to the observation region ω). The unique-continuation stability estimate (Lemma 2.6) then converts L2(ω)-plus-Laplacian control into L2(B) or H1(B) control with Hölder exponents τ, τ'. The assumption that ω is a union of mesh elements makes the basis functions vanishing outside ω, which is what reduces the sampled Gram-matrix control to the subspace active in ω.

What would settle it

Run the proposed estimator on the elliptic data assimilation problem with ω chosen to cut diagonally through mesh cells, keeping h at the optimal coupling; if the L2(B) error does not decay like (σ²/(N l_N))^{ατ/(2α+d)} with probability tending to 1, the element-alignment assumption is load-bearing. Alternatively, take u† ∈ H^α with α≤1 and check whether the Chebyshev bound in Lemma 4.7 fails, since it relies on the L∞ control of the interpolant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that if one defines a Gaussian prior on the finite element space Vh by log π(uh) ∝ -(N/(2σ²))( ||h^β uh||_{V_h}^2 + Σ_K ||$h^{{1+β}}$(-Δuh - fh)||_{L2(K)}^2 + ||h^β(-Δuh - f)||_{W*_h}^2 ) for β=0,1, then the discrete posterior mean (equivalently the MAP estimator for this linear-Gaussian problem) contracts to the true solution u† at the rate predicted by the continuous posterior theory, provided h = O((σ²/(N l_N))^{1/(2α+d)}) for the L2(B)-norm statement and h = O((σ²/(N l_N))^{1/(2(α-1)+d)}) for the H1(B) statement. The proof obtains the convergence with probability tending to 1 over both the random observation points and noise, and it does not require u† to lie in the Cameron-Martin space of the prior, only in H^α(Ω)∩$C^{0}$(Ω) with α>1. The paper also shows that if the mesh is coarser than the optimal coupling, the error is dominated by the finite-element interpolation error $h^{{ατ}}$, which is the optimal rate for this ill-posed problem.

Load-bearing premise

The proof requires the observation region ω to be exactly a union of mesh elements and the truth to lie in H^α(Ω)∩$C^{0}$(Ω) with α>1; either condition failing—ω cutting through cells, or a truth with α≤1 or without continuity—leaves the stated high-probability rates unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For elliptic data assimilation with a mesh-aligned observation region, the discrete posterior mean and MAP estimator achieve the same contraction rate as the continuous posterior, as long as one solves on a mesh with h coupled to N like (σ²/(N l_N))^{1/(2α+d)}.
The finite element dimension only needs to grow as N^{d/(2α+d)}, which is at most N^{1/2} when α>d/2, so computational cost of the linear solve stays comparable to the sampling cost when α>d.
The truth does not need to live in the Cameron-Martin space of the prior: only H^α∩C^0 with α>1 is required, relaxing the usual α>d/2 assumption.
If the mesh is too coarse relative to N, the error becomes purely the finite-element interpolation error h^{ατ}, giving a clean separation between statistical and discretization errors.
The mixed formulation (4.19) gives a practical way to compute the MAP estimator without forming the dual-norm penalty explicitly.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the observation region ω cuts across mesh cells, the identity used to reduce the Gram-matrix control to the active subspace breaks; one testable fix is to enrich the space near ∂ω or to use a quadrature/oversampling approach, at the price of possibly slower rates.
The same recipe—penalize the PDE residual in the natural dual norm and use conditional stability to convert observation error into state error—should transfer to other ill-posed problems such as the Cauchy problem for the Helmholtz equation or the Schrödinger unique continuation problem, where similar stability exponents are available.
Because the rate's exponent contains the unique-continuation stability τ, the paper implies that the achievable contraction rate for this problem is intrinsically limited by stability, not by the Bayesian machinery—a feature shared with deterministic regularization.
One could test the theory numerically by comparing the predicted h ~ N^{-1/(2α+d)} coupling against a fixed, too-coarse mesh: the error should stall at the interpolation floor h^{ατ}, which is directly measurable.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know. First, Section 4 is a real contribution: the authors build Gaussian priors directly on finite element spaces, with PDE-residual penalties, instead of discretizing a continuous prior. That lets them bypass Cameron-Martin support assumptions and still get contraction rates that match the continuous theory in [23]. Second, the main theorem as written has a load-bearing error: the polynomial-degree condition k≥min{α−1,1} is too weak. The proof of Lemma 4.4 uses h^{α−1} interpolation error in H1, which requires k+1≥α. For α>2 the stated condition allows k=1, and the claimed h^{α−1+β} bias bound fails. So Theorem 4.2(1) is not established for α>2. The fix is likely k≥max{α−1,1}, but this is exactly the kind of assumption that must be checked, not glossed.

What the paper does well: the tailor-made prior idea is genuinely new relative to [27], [29], and [23]. The h-N coupling h~(σ²/(N l_N))^{1/(2α+d)} is useful practical guidance. The proof structure—bias-variance decomposition, matrix Chernoff empirical process, unique-continuation stability—is coherent. The self-citations to [6]-[8] are for technical lemmas and are appropriate.

Soft spots, in proportion. The sign errors in Theorem 4.1: h and δ_N are displayed with negative exponents. These are almost certainly typos, but as printed the statements diverge. That has to be fixed, and it is a little embarrassing in the main theorem. The abstract promises posterior contraction, but the theorems state convergence of the MAP or posterior mean. Lemma 4.13 bounds the posterior variance, so a measure-contraction statement is within reach; they should state it. Also, the analysis assumes ω is exactly a union of elements. That's a real restriction, but reasonable if ω is polyhedral and the mesh is fitted.

Who this is for: people working on FEM-based Bayesian inverse problems who want to avoid spectral bases and want to know how to choose mesh size as N grows. It deserves a serious referee: the core idea is sound and the errors are correctable, but the degree condition is load-bearing and must be fixed before the main result can be trusted. My recommendation: send it to review, but with a referee instruction to verify the interpolation condition carefully.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes posterior contraction for Bayesian data assimilation under discretization. Section 3 considers conforming subspaces of the Cameron-Martin space and proves a convergence rate for the discrete posterior mean via Galerkin orthogonality. Section 4 constructs tailor-made Gaussian priors on H1-conforming finite element spaces and states contraction rates for the elliptic data assimilation problem: for the L2(B) semi-norm and beta=1, with h chosen as (sigma^2/(N l_N))^{1/(2alpha+d)}, the posterior mean/MAP estimator contracts at rate (sigma^2/(N l_N))^{alpha tau/(2alpha+d)}; for the H1(B) semi-norm and beta=0, an analogous rate (sigma^2/(N l_N))^{(alpha-1)tau'/(2(alpha-1)+d)} is claimed. The stated rates are intended to match the continuous posterior theory of [23] while avoiding the assumption that the ground truth lies in the Cameron-Martin space.

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, this is a useful contribution: it gives a concrete recipe for finite element priors in Bayesian data assimilation with simultaneous rates in sample size, mesh size, and noise, and it relaxes the requirement that the truth belongs to the Cameron-Martin space. The proof architecture is coherent, separating deterministic interpolation bias, stochastic variance, and an empirical-process lower bound via the matrix Chernoff bound. The paper is also careful to state the coupling between h and N and to compare with the continuous benchmark. However, the central rate is not established as written because the polynomial-degree condition is too weak for the interpolation estimates used in Lemma 4.4, and the theorem displays contain sign errors that make the stated h and delta_N diverge.

major comments (3)

[Lemma 4.4; Appendix A, Eq. (A.4); Theorems 4.1 and 4.2] The polynomial-degree condition k >= min{alpha-1,1} is insufficient for alpha > 2. The approximation property (A.4) is stated only for s <= k+1, and the proof of Lemma 4.4 requires an H1 interpolation error of order h^{alpha-1} (via [6, Prop. 3.3] and (A.4)) to obtain the bound h^{2(alpha-1+beta)}. For alpha > 2, the condition allows k=1, but then k+1=2 < alpha, so (A.4) does not apply at s=alpha and the H1 error is only of order h, not h^{alpha-1}. For example, with alpha=2.5 and k=1, the bound in Lemma 4.4 would claim h^3 bias while piecewise-linear interpolation only gives h^2 in H1. Consequently the balance h = (sigma^2/(N l_N))^{1/(2alpha+d)} and the resulting rate in Theorem 4.2(1) are not justified. The condition should be k+1 >= alpha (equivalently k >= ceil(alpha-1)) throughout, and the complexity statements should be rechecked with this requirement.
[Theorems 4.1 and 4.2] The displayed formulas for h and delta_N contain negative exponents. Theorem 4.1 states h = h(N) ~ O((sigma^2/N)^{-1/(2alpha+d)}) and delta_N = (sigma^2/N)^{-alpha/(2alpha+d)}, which tend to infinity as N grows; Theorem 4.2(1) similarly states delta_N = (sigma^2/(N l_N))^{-alpha/(2alpha+d)}, and Theorem 4.2(2) states delta'_N = (sigma^2/(N l_N))^{-(alpha-1)/(2(alpha-1)+d)}. These are presumably typographical errors, but as written they contradict the claimed convergence. They must be corrected to positive exponents: h ~ (sigma^2/N)^{1/(2alpha+d)} and delta_N = (sigma^2/N)^{alpha/(2alpha+d)} in Theorem 4.1, and likewise in Theorem 4.2.
[Section 2.1 and Lemma 4.10] The observation measure is handled inconsistently. In Section 2.1 the sampling distribution lambda is assumed only to be a probability measure equivalent to Lebesgue on omega. In Lemma 4.10, however, the proof states 'Let lambda be the Lebesgue measure in omega' and uses E[A_N] = A, where A is the L2(omega) Gram matrix. If lambda has a density that is not bounded above and below uniformly on omega, the smallest eigenvalue of the expected sampled Gram matrix can be much smaller than the corresponding L2 mass-matrix eigenvalue, and the constant c in (4.39) may not be uniform in h. This is load-bearing for the high-probability variance estimates in Lemmas 4.11 and 4.13. The authors should either assume lambda has density bounded above and below (or is normalized Lebesgue) and state this in the problem setting, or adapt the proof to the genuinely weighted Gram matrix.

minor comments (4)

[Lemma 4.13] In the displayed definition just before (4.42), the set should be {forall v_h in V_h: 1/N sum v_h^2(X_i) >= c ||v_h||^2_{L2(omega)}}, but the text writes '<= c'. This is a typographical inversion of the inequality direction and should be corrected.
[Lemma 4.7] In the final display of the proof, the norm ||u||_{L^infty(Omega)} and ||u||_{H^alpha(Omega)} should refer to the ground truth u^dagger; the variable u is undefined at that point.
[Notation in Theorem 4.2] The notation h = h(N) >> O(N^{-1/(2alpha+d)}) is imprecise; it should be written as h(N)/(N^{-1/(2alpha+d)}) -> infinity to make the asymptotic meaning unambiguous.
[Section 1.2 and Section 4.1] The statement that the dimension of V_h scales as O(N^{d/(2alpha+d)}) ignores the dependence on the polynomial degree k; after correcting k >= ceil(alpha-1), the constant in this dimension bound depends on k (through the number of degrees of freedom per element), which is harmless for the rates but should be acknowledged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the contraction rates follow from an explicit bias–variance balance with generic constants, not from fitted inputs or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the discrete finite-element posterior (MAP or posterior mean) contracts to u† at a rate obtained by balancing a deterministic interpolation/consistency error against a stochastic sampling error. The derivation chain is explicit: Lemma 4.4 bounds the tailor-made prior norm and PDE residuals of the interpolant u†_h by C h^{2(α−1+β)}||u†||^2_{H^α}; Lemma 4.7 and Lemma 4.11 convert the empirical Gram-matrix fluctuation and sampling variance into high-probability bounds with the same h-power; Lemma 4.13 bounds the y-fluctuation by Cσ²/(N h^d) using the trace identity and the dimension count n≲h^{-d}. Equating h^{2(α−1+β)} with σ²/(N h^d) is a standard bias–variance trade-off, and all constants are generic and independent of the observed data; none is fitted to y or to the target estimator. The prior in (4.6)–(4.7) is intentionally h-scaled so that the deterministic error has the stated power, but that is an explicit design choice, not a hidden equivalence between input and output. The comparison with the continuous theory of [23] is an external benchmark, not an input to the proof. The self-citations [6], [7], and [8] supply deterministic finite-element and conditional-stability estimates whose assumptions do not include the posterior-contraction result; they are technical tools that could be checked independently, so they do not make the argument circular. Apparent sign errors in the displayed exponents of Theorems 4.1–4.2 and the polynomial-degree condition (k≥min{α−1,1} versus the (A.4) requirement s≤k+1) are correctness risks, not circularity. No step of the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central rates contain no data-fitted constants; the exponents follow from balancing variance and bias. The main inputs are assumptions about the problem (stability, regularity, mesh alignment) and the tailor-made prior construction, which is the paper's contribution.

free parameters (3)

regularity exponent α
Choice of h, polynomial degree k, and the prior scaling all depend on α; α is assumed known and not estimated from data.
noise scale σ²
Prior (4.6) is scaled by N/(2σ²) and the optimal mesh h depends on σ²/N; requires known or estimated noise variance.
stability exponent τ (and τ')
Enter the contraction rate; these are geometry-dependent constants from the three-spheres inequality, not data-fitted.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Unique continuation stability estimates (Lemma 2.6), cited from [22], [4], [7]
Provides the backward conditional stability needed to convert the data-misfit contraction into L2(B) and H1(B) rates; load-bearing for the exponent τ.
domain assumption Observation measure λ equivalent to Lebesgue on ω and the noise covariance Σ uniformly bounded from above and below by σ²_min and σ²_max
Used in the empirical process (Lemma 4.10) and variance bound (Lemma 4.7); if λ vanishes on parts of ω or Σ is arbitrarily ill-conditioned, the sample Gram matrix is uncontrollable.
domain assumption ω is the union of a subfamily of the triangulation, and u†∈H^α(Ω)∩C^0(Ω) with α>1
Needed for the restricted empirical process identity v2≡0 on ω and for the L∞ bound in Lemma 4.7; explicit in Section 4.1 and Theorem 4.1.
standard math Finite element interpolation and inverse inequalities (Appendix A), quasi-interpolation estimate (A.4), trace and inverse inequalities
Used throughout the proofs to bound interpolation error and convert between norms on V_h.
standard math Matrix Chernoff bound and Chebyshev inequality (Appendix B)
Basis of the high-probability empirical process and variance estimates in Lemmas 4.7 and 4.10.
ad hoc to paper The tailor-made discrete prior is Gaussian with precision given by the bilinear form in (4.8)
This construction is the paper's device; the proof is built around this choice, but the theorem's claim is about this prior.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Posterior contraction rates of computational methods for Bayesian data assimilation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SJWNAU3F

@misc{pith2026250614685,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Posterior contraction rates of computational methods for Bayesian data assimilation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SJWNAU3F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14685}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we analyze posterior consistency of a Bayesian data assimilation problem under discretization. We prove convergence rates for the discrete posterior to ground truth solution under both conforming discretization and finite element discretization (usually non-conforming). The analysis is based on the coupling of asymptotics between the number of samples and the dimension of discrete spaces. In the finite element discretization, tailor-made discrete priors, instead of the discretization of continuous priors, are used to generate an optimal convergence rate.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[23]

Nickl , Bayesian non-linear statistical inverse problems , EMS press Berlin, 2023

R. Nickl , Bayesian non-linear statistical inverse problems , EMS press Berlin, 2023

work page 2023
[27]

Papandreou, J

Y. Papandreou, J. Cockayne, M. Girolami, and A. Duncan , Theoretical guarantees for the statistical finite element method , SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 11 (2023), pp. 1278–1307

work page 2023
[29]

Sanz-Alonso and N

D. Sanz-Alonso and N. W aniorek , Analysis of a computational framework for Bayesian inverse problems: Ensemble Kalman updates and MAP estimators under mesh refinement , SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 12 (2024), pp. 30–68

work page 2024
[6]

Solving the unique continuation problem for Schr\"odinger equations with low regularity solutions using a stabilized finite element method

E. Burman, M. Lu, and L. Oksanen , Solving the unique continuation problem for Schr¨ odinger equations with low regularity solutions using a stabilized finite element method, 2024, https: //arxiv.org/abs/2403.16914, https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16914

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[8]

Burman, M

E. Burman, M. Nechita, and L. Oksanen , Optimal approximation of unique continuation , Foundations of Computational Mathematics, (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

Abraham and R

K. Abraham and R. Nickl , On statistical Calder´ on problems, Mathematical Statistics and Learning, 2 (2020), pp. 165–216

work page 2020
[2]

Agapiou, S

S. Agapiou, S. Larsson, and A. M. Stuart , Posterior contraction rates for the Bayesian approach to linear ill-posed inverse problems , Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 123 (2013), pp. 3828–3860

work page 2013
[3]

Agapiou, A

S. Agapiou, A. M. Stuart, and Y.-X. Zhang , Bayesian posterior contraction rates for linear severely ill-posed inverse problems , Journal of Inverse and Ill-posed Problems, 22 (2014), pp. 297–321

work page 2014

Show all 34 references

[4]

Alessandrini, L

G. Alessandrini, L. Rondi, E. Rosset, and S. Vessella , The stability for the Cauchy problem for elliptic equations , Inverse problems, 25 (2009), p. 123004

2009
[5]

A. H. Barnett and T. Betcke , Stability and convergence of the method of fundamental solutions for Helmholtz problems on analytic domains , Journal of Computational Physics, 227 (2008), pp. 7003–7026

2008
[7]

Burman, M

E. Burman, M. Nechita, and L. Oksanen , Unique continuation for the Helmholtz equation using stabilized finite element methods , Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 129 (2019), pp. 1–22

2019
[9]

D. A. Di Pietro and A. Ern , Mathematical aspects of discontinuous Galerkin methods, vol. 69, Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

2011
[10]

Durrett , Probability: theory and examples , vol

R. Durrett , Probability: theory and examples , vol. 49, Cambridge university press, 2019

2019
[11]

H. W. Engl, M. Hanke, and A. Neubauer , Regularization of inverse problems , vol. 375, Springer Science & Business Media, 1996

1996
[12]

Ern and J.-L

A. Ern and J.-L. Guermond , Finite element quasi-interpolation and best approximation , ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 51 (2017), pp. 1367–1385

2017
[13]

Ern and J.-L

A. Ern and J.-L. Guermond , Finite elements I: Approximation and interpolation , vol. 72, Springer Nature, 2021

2021
[14]

Ern, J.-L

A. Ern, J.-L. Guermond, et al. , Finite elements II , Springer, 2021

2021
[15]

Florens and A

J.-P. Florens and A. Simoni , Regularizing priors for linear inverse problems , Econometric Theory, 32 (2016), pp. 71–121

2016
[16]

Giordano and R

M. Giordano and R. Nickl , Consistency of Bayesian inference with Gaussian process priors in an elliptic inverse problem , Inverse problems, 36 (2020), p. 085001

2020
[17]

Kaipio and E

J. Kaipio and E. Somersalo , Statistical and computational inverse problems , vol. 160, Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

2006
[18]

B. T. Knapik, A. W. V an Der V aart, and J. H. van Zanten , Bayesian inverse problems with Gaussian priors , The Annals of Statistics, (2011)

2011
[19]

Lassas, E

M. Lassas, E. Saksman, and S. Siltanen , Discretization-invariant Bayesian inversion and Besov space priors, Inverse Probl. Imaging, 3 (2009), pp. 87–122, https://doi.org/10.3934/ ipi.2009.3.87, https://doi.org/10.3934/ipi.2009.3.87

2009 doi
[20]

Marzouk and D

Y. Marzouk and D. Xiu , A stochastic collocation approach to Bayesian inference in inverse problems, Communications in Computational Physics, (2009)

2009
[21]

Monard, R

F. Monard, R. Nickl, and G. P. Paternain , Statistical guarantees for Bayesian uncertainty quantification in nonlinear inverse problems with Gaussian process priors , The Annals of Statistics, 49 (2021), pp. 3255–3298. 28 E. BURMAN AND M. LU

2021
[22]

Monsuur and R

H. Monsuur and R. Stevenson , Ultra-weak least squares discretizations for unique continu- ation and Cauchy problems , arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04571, (2024)

2024 arXiv
[24]

Nickl and E

R. Nickl and E. S. Titi , On posterior consistency of data assimilation with Gaussian process priors: The 2D-Navier–Stokes equations , The Annals of Statistics, 52 (2024), pp. 1825– 1844

2024
[25]

Nickl, S

R. Nickl, S. van de Geer, and S. W ang , Convergence rates for penalized least squares estimators in PDE constrained regression problems , SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 8 (2020), pp. 374–413

2020
[26]

Nickl and S

R. Nickl and S. W ang , On polynomial-time computation of high-dimensional posterior mea- sures by Langevin-type algorithms, Journal of the European Mathematical Society, (2022)

2022
[28]

Sanz-Alonso, A

D. Sanz-Alonso, A. M. Stuart, and A. Taeb , Inverse problems and data assimilation , arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.06191, (2018)

2018 arXiv
[30]

A. M. Stuart , Inverse problems: a Bayesian perspective , Acta numerica, 19 (2010), pp. 451– 559

2010
[31]

A. N. Tikhonov et al. , On the stability of inverse problems , in Dokl. akad. nauk sssr, vol. 39, 1943, pp. 195–198

1943
[32]

J. A. Tropp et al. , An introduction to matrix concentration inequalities , Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 8 (2015), pp. 1–230

2015
[33]

A. W. V an Der V aart and J. H. V an Zanten , Rates of contraction of posterior distributions based on Gaussian process priors , The Annals of Statistics, (2008)

2008
[34]

S. J. Vollmer , Posterior consistency for Bayesian inverse problems through stability and regression results, Inverse Problems, 29 (2013), p. 125011

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [23]

Nickl , Bayesian non-linear statistical inverse problems , EMS press Berlin, 2023

R. Nickl , Bayesian non-linear statistical inverse problems , EMS press Berlin, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [27]

Papandreou, J

Y. Papandreou, J. Cockayne, M. Girolami, and A. Duncan , Theoretical guarantees for the statistical finite element method , SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 11 (2023), pp. 1278–1307

work page 2023

[3] [29]

Sanz-Alonso and N

D. Sanz-Alonso and N. W aniorek , Analysis of a computational framework for Bayesian inverse problems: Ensemble Kalman updates and MAP estimators under mesh refinement , SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 12 (2024), pp. 30–68

work page 2024

[4] [6]

Solving the unique continuation problem for Schr\"odinger equations with low regularity solutions using a stabilized finite element method

E. Burman, M. Lu, and L. Oksanen , Solving the unique continuation problem for Schr¨ odinger equations with low regularity solutions using a stabilized finite element method, 2024, https: //arxiv.org/abs/2403.16914, https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16914

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[5] [8]

Burman, M

E. Burman, M. Nechita, and L. Oksanen , Optimal approximation of unique continuation , Foundations of Computational Mathematics, (2024)

work page 2024

[6] [1]

Abraham and R

K. Abraham and R. Nickl , On statistical Calder´ on problems, Mathematical Statistics and Learning, 2 (2020), pp. 165–216

work page 2020

[7] [2]

Agapiou, S

S. Agapiou, S. Larsson, and A. M. Stuart , Posterior contraction rates for the Bayesian approach to linear ill-posed inverse problems , Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 123 (2013), pp. 3828–3860

work page 2013

[8] [3]

Agapiou, A

S. Agapiou, A. M. Stuart, and Y.-X. Zhang , Bayesian posterior contraction rates for linear severely ill-posed inverse problems , Journal of Inverse and Ill-posed Problems, 22 (2014), pp. 297–321

work page 2014