mice
tBayes-MICE: A Bayesian Approach to Multiple Imputation for Time Series Data
Ibenegbu, Amuche, de Micheaux, Pierre Lafaye, Chandra, Rohitash
Time-series analysis is often affected by missing data, a common problem across several fields, including healthcare and environmental monitoring. Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) has been prominent for imputing missing values through "fully conditional specification". We extend MICE using the Bayesian framework (tBayes-MICE), utilising Bayesian inference to impute missing values via Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling to account for uncertainty in MICE model parameters and imputed values. We also include temporally informed initialisation and time-lagged features in the model to respect the sequential nature of time-series data. We evaluate the tBayes-MICE method using two real-world datasets (AirQuality and PhysioNet), and using both the Random Walk Metropolis (RWM) and the Metropolis-Adjusted Langevin Algorithm (MALA) samplers. Our results demonstrate that tBayes-MICE reduces imputation errors relative to the baseline methods over all variables and accounts for uncertainty in the imputation process, thereby providing a more accurate measure of imputation error. We also found that MALA mixed better than RWM across most variables, achieving comparable accuracy while providing more consistent posterior exploration. Overall, these findings suggest that the tBayes-MICE framework represents a practical and efficient approach to time-series imputation, balancing increased accuracy with meaningful quantification of uncertainty in various environmental and clinical settings.
- North America > Trinidad and Tobago > Trinidad > Arima > Arima (0.04)
- Oceania > Australia > New South Wales (0.04)
- Europe > Italy (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Directed Networks > Bayesian Learning (0.88)
- North America > United States (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Greater London > London (0.04)
- Europe > Russia (0.04)
- Asia > Russia > Siberian Federal District > Novosibirsk Oblast > Novosibirsk (0.04)
20 MICE( 20 MICE(80 MC(20 MC(80 prediction
In this paper, we tackled just the first one in the list to show the effectiveness of9 ouralgorithm. Weagree that computations aresimple, i.e., elegant,once the18 aforementioned requirements have been elicited. Eliciting them, however,is definitely non-trivial and has not been19 explored in the literature so far for expectations. Our circuits are expressive enough to model larger datasets24 (see our answer to R#1.2) and learning them would scale: in manycases it is easier to learn aLC than aneural net25 (e.g., see [3]). 3. Approximate inference alternatives. Whenever we are able to compute expectations exactly for26 regression (Thm 1), we might want to consider approximations only to speed computations.
- Research Report > New Finding (0.46)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (0.46)
Appendix
In this section, we first provide model parameters used for training the attack GANs. We then provide sample images from each cluster/class for each of the models, along with the generated noise using ourGAN models. In this section, we provide additional details for the defense approaches considered in this paper. B.1 RobustDeepClustering We provide hyperparameter values (Table 6) for training the GAN network for RUC, along with confusion matrices (Figures 37 - 39) and adversarial samples (Figures 40 - 42) obtained via our attack. Then, in Table 8 we provide the actual values used for generating the injection/detection bar plot figureinthemaintext.
- North America > United States > California > Santa Barbara County > Santa Barbara (0.14)
- North America > United States > Oregon > Lane County > Eugene (0.14)
- South America > Chile > Santiago Metropolitan Region > Santiago Province > Santiago (0.05)
- Asia > India (0.04)
Multiparameter Uncertainty Mapping in Quantitative Molecular MRI using a Physics-Structured Variational Autoencoder (PS-VAE)
Finkelstein, Alex, Moneta, Ron, Zohar, Or, Rivlin, Michal, Zaiss, Moritz, Morvinski, Dinora Friedmann, Perlman, Or
Quantitative imaging methods, such as magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF), aim to extract interpretable pathology biomarkers by estimating biophysical tissue parameters from signal evolutions. However, the pattern-matching algorithms or neural networks used in such inverse problems often lack principled uncertainty quantification, which limits the trustworthiness and transparency, required for clinical acceptance. Here, we describe a physics-structured variational autoencoder (PS-VAE) designed for rapid extraction of voxelwise multi-parameter posterior distributions. Our approach integrates a differentiable spin physics simulator with self-supervised learning, and provides a full covariance that captures the inter-parameter correlations of the latent biophysical space. The method was validated in a multi-proton pool chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) and semisolid magnetization transfer (MT) molecular MRF study, across in-vitro phantoms, tumor-bearing mice, healthy human volunteers, and a subject with glioblastoma. The resulting multi-parametric posteriors are in good agreement with those calculated using a brute-force Bayesian analysis, while providing an orders-of-magnitude acceleration in whole brain quantification. In addition, we demonstrate how monitoring the multi-parameter posterior dynamics across progressively acquired signals provides practical insights for protocol optimization and may facilitate real-time adaptive acquisition.
- Asia > Middle East > Israel > Tel Aviv District > Tel Aviv (0.05)
- Europe > Germany (0.04)
- Health & Medicine > Diagnostic Medicine > Imaging (0.94)
- Health & Medicine > Therapeutic Area > Neurology (0.88)
- Health & Medicine > Therapeutic Area > Oncology > Brain Cancer (0.34)