  Bayesian inference paradigms are regarded as powerful tools for solution of
inverse problems. However, when applied to inverse problems in physical
sciences, Bayesian formulations suffer from a number of inconsistencies that
are often overlooked. A well known, but mostly neglected, difficulty is
connected to the notion of conditional probability densities. Borel, and later
Kolmogorov's (1933/1956), found that the traditional definition of conditional
densities is incomplete: In different parameterizations it leads to different
results. We will show an example where two apparently correct procedures
applied to the same problem lead to two widely different results. Another type
of inconsistency involves violation of causality. This problem is found in
model selection strategies in Bayesian inversion, such as Hierarchical Bayes
and Trans-Dimensional Inversion where so-called hyperparameters are included as
variables to control either the number (or type) of unknowns, or the prior
uncertainties on data or model parameters. For Hierarchical Bayes we
demonstrate that the calculated 'prior' distributions of data or model
parameters are not prior-, but posterior information. In fact, the calculated
'standard deviations' of the data are a measure of the inability of the forward
function to model the data, rather than uncertainties of the data. For
trans-dimensional inverse problems we show that the so-called evidence is, in
fact, not a measure of the success of fitting the data for the given choice (or
number) of parameters, as often claimed. We also find that the notion of
Natural Parsimony is ill-defined, because of its dependence on the parameter
prior. Based on this study, we find that careful rethinking of Bayesian
inversion practices is required, with special emphasis on ways of avoiding the
Borel-Kolmogorov inconsistency, and on the way we interpret model selection
results.
