Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Uncertainty calibration in Bayesian M/EEG source imaging

Summary

This study introduces a simulation-based framework to assess the empirical calibration of posterior credible regions in Bayesian M/EEG source imaging. It compares BMN+sLORETA and SBL+S-FLEX, finding that SBL+S-FLEX yields lower localization error, tighter uncertainty, and coverage closer to nominal credibility, though both methods remain miscalibrated; isotonic recalibration improves both, and real auditory MEG data favor SBL+S-FLEX.

SourcearXiv Machine LearningAuthor: Ismail Huseynov, Mohammad Orabe, Srikantan Nagarajan, Stefan Haufe
Uncertainty calibration in Bayesian M/EEG source imaging
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 4 Nov 2026]

Title:Uncertainty calibration in Bayesian M/EEG source imaging

View a PDF of the paper titled Uncertainty calibration in Bayesian M/EEG source imaging, by Ismail Huseynov and 3 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:M/EEG source imaging requires accurate localization and reliable uncertainty estimates, yet posterior credible regions are rarely assessed for empirical calibration. We present a simulation-based framework for uncertainty quantification and calibration of empirical Bayesian inverse methods with closed-form conditional Gaussian posterior summaries. We compare Bayesian minimum norm (BMN) with sLORETA depth weighting and sparse Bayesian learning (SBL) with sparse basis field expansions (S-FLEX). S-FLEX allows retained coefficients to contribute nonzero marginal posterior variance at locations where voxel-wise SBL yields degenerate variances. For BMN, we derive joint source- and noise-variance updates through evidence maximization. We test whether adaptive noise learning yields near-calibrated uncertainties. Both methods retain residual miscalibration, motivating post-hoc isotonic recalibration of credible-region levels using empirical coverage. Simulations assess fixed- and free-orientation models across signal-to-noise ratios (SNR), source sparsity levels, and subject-specific head models, using oracle, baseline-estimated, and adaptively learned noise. Before recalibration, SBL+S-FLEX yields lower Wasserstein localization error, smaller posterior uncertainty, and coverage closer to nominal credibility than BMN+sLORETA. Isotonic recalibration improves both methods, with larger gains for conservative BMN+sLORETA posteriors; transfer across mismatched SNR, sparsity, and head models remains condition dependent. Noise specifications yield broadly consistent reconstruction and uncertainty trends within each estimator. In real auditory MEG data, SBL+S-FLEX provides more focal localization and tighter uncertainties than BMN+sLORETA, suggesting greater statistical power for identifying bilateral auditory sources.

Subjects:

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE)

Cite as: arXiv:2611.06979 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2611.06979v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.06979

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Ismail Huseynov [view email] [v1] Wed, 4 Nov 2026 13:41:21 UTC (3,924 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Uncertainty calibration in Bayesian M/EEG source imaging, by Ismail Huseynov and 3 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.LG

new | recent | 2026-11

Change to browse by:

cs cs.CE

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

IArxiv recommender toggle

IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

ResearchersAdvanced

Key points

  • A simulation framework is proposed to evaluate uncertainty calibration of empirical Bayesian inverse methods.
  • SBL+S-FLEX shows lower Wasserstein localization error, smaller posterior uncertainty, and better coverage than BMN+sLORETA.
  • Isotonic recalibration improves both methods, with larger gains for conservative BMN+sLORETA posteriors.
  • In real auditory MEG, SBL+S-FLEX provides more focal localization and tighter uncertainties.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.

Uncertainty calibration in Bayesian M/EEG source imaging | AI News Hub