An optimal Bayesian strategy for comparing Wiener–Hunt deconvolution models in the absence of ground truth

This paper considers the quantitative comparison of several alternative models to perform deconvolution in situations where there is no ground truth data available. With applications to very large data sets in mind, we focus on linear deconvolution models based on a Wiener filter. Although comparatively simple, such models are widely prevalent in large scale setting such as high-resolution image restoration because they provide an excellent trade-off between accuracy and computational effort. However, in order to deliver accurate solutions, the models need to be properly calibrated in order to capture the covariance structure of the unknown quantity of interest and of the measurement error. This calibration often requires onerous controlled experiments and extensive expert supervision, as well as regular recalibration procedures. This paper adopts an unsupervised Bayesian statistical approach to model assessment that allows comparing alternative models by using only the observed data, without the need for ground truth data or controlled experiments. Accordingly, the models are quantitatively compared based on their posterior probabilities given the data, which are derived from the marginal likelihoods or evidences of the models. The computation of these evidences is highly non-trivial and this paper consider three different strategies to address this difficulty—a Chib approach, Laplace approximations, and a truncated harmonic expectation—all of which efficiently implemented by using a Gibbs sampling algorithm specialised for this class of models. In addition to enabling unsupervised model selection, the output of the Gibbs sampler can also be used to automatically estimate unknown model parameters such as the variance of the measurement error and the power of the unknown quantity of interest. The proposed strategies are demonstrated on a range of image deconvolution problems, where they are used to compare different modelling choices for the instrument’s point spread function and covariance matrices for the unknown image and for the measurement error.