Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification for Low-Rank Matrix Completion
About
We consider the problem of uncertainty quantification for an unknown low-rank matrix $\mathbf{X}$, given a partial and noisy observation of its entries. This quantification of uncertainty is essential for many real-world problems, including image processing, satellite imaging, and seismology, providing a principled framework for validating scientific conclusions and guiding decision-making. However, existing literature has mainly focused on the completion (i.e., point estimation) of the matrix $\mathbf{X}$, with little work on investigating its uncertainty. To this end, we propose in this work a new Bayesian modeling framework, called BayeSMG, which parametrizes the unknown $\mathbf{X}$ via its underlying row and column subspaces. This Bayesian subspace parametrization enables efficient posterior inference on matrix subspaces, which represents interpretable phenomena in many applications. This can then be leveraged for improved matrix recovery. We demonstrate the effectiveness of BayeSMG over existing Bayesian matrix recovery methods in numerical experiments, image inpainting, and a seismic sensor network application.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matrix Generation | Solar few-sample (n=300) pmiss=0% | Singular Value Discrepancy0.0321 | 14 | |
| Density Estimation | Solar 0% p_miss Few-sample (n=300) | MMD0.219 | 14 | |
| Density Estimation | Solar Few-sample (n=300) (20% p_miss) | MMD0.265 | 11 | |
| Matrix Generation | Solar few-sample (n=300) (pmiss=20%) | Average Singular-Value Discrepancy0.045 | 11 | |
| Generative Modeling | Crosshatch 20% missing-entry rate | Mean Entry Difference (x10^-2)0.0728 | 10 | |
| Generative Modeling | Waves 20% missing-entry rate | Mean Absolute Entry Difference14.8 | 10 | |
| Density Estimation | Solar Few-sample (n=300) (40% p_miss) | MMD0.293 | 8 | |
| Distribution Matching | Bands pmiss 0% | Frob Mean Diff14.2 | 5 | |
| Distribution Matching | Bands pmiss 20% | Frob Mean Diff16.3 | 5 | |
| Distribution Matching | Bands pmiss 40% | Frob Mean Diff19.9 | 5 |