Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

GraphGrad: Efficient Estimation of Sparse Polynomial Representations for General State-Space Models

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read From noisy, partial observations, a sparse polynomial model can recover the interaction graph of a nonlinear dynamical system.

desk verdict A solid engineering contribution that combines a differentiable particle filter with proximal L1 for sparse recovery of polynomial SSM dynamics; referee it, but ask for reproducibility details and a more careful statement of the optimization guarantees. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15637 v3 pith:JUX5IRER submitted 2024-11-23 stat.CO

Benjamin Cox , Emilie Chouzenoux , Victor Elvira This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.CO MSC 62M0962M0565K10
keywords state-spacemodelsdifferentiableparticlefiltersparsepolynomialapproximationnonlineardynamicsnetworkinferenceL1regularizationproximalgradientLorenzsystems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

GraphGrad tackles a standing problem in time-series analysis: when a system's hidden state is only seen through noisy observations, how can one learn which components actually influence one another? The paper's answer is to approximate the unknown transition function by a polynomial of fixed maximum degree, with coefficients stored in a matrix C, and to read the zero pattern of C as a directed interaction graph. It shows that a differentiable particle filter can supply gradients of a Monte Carlo likelihood estimate, and that a proximal step applying L1 sparsity turns those gradients into a practical estimator for C. The result, if correct, is a fully automatic, unsupervised route from raw observation series to both the structure and the parameter values of a broad class of nonlinear state-space models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair (C, D): a learned real coefficient matrix C ∈ $R^{{Nx×M}}$ and a fixed integer degree matrix D ∈ $N_0^{{Nx×M}}$ whose columns list the exponents of all monomials of degree at most d in N_x variables. The transition mean is the polynomial f(x, C; D) = Σ_{j=1}^M C_{·,j} ∏_{i=1}^{N_x} $x_i^{{D_{i,j}}$}. Gradient information flows to C through a stop-gradient differentiable particle filter (Algorithm 2), which leaves the forward particle filter unchanged but lets automatic differentiation pass through the importance weights; the L1 penalty is then applied not by subgradient descent but by the soft-thresholding proximity operator T_{ηλ}(x) = max(|x|−ηλ, 0) sgn(x), giving the stochastic proximal-gradient update of Equation (15). A telescoping batch schedule (B-GraphGrad) avoids likelihood degeneracy on long observation series.

What would settle it

Simulate a sparse polynomial SSM with known coefficients, run B-GraphGrad on very long observation series with a correctly specified degree, and check whether the recovered adjacency matrix A converges to the true support; the paper's claim predicts F1 approaching 1, and any plateau below 1 at large T refutes it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for a nonlinear state-space model whose transition density is written as a Gaussian around a polynomial mean f(x, C; D) = Σ_j C_{·,j} ∏_i $x_i^{{D_{i,j}}$}, the coefficient matrix C can be estimated from the observations alone by minimizing a penalized negative log-likelihood, with the L1 penalty applied through a soft-thresholding proximal update. Because the degree matrix D is fixed and known, every nonzero coefficient names a specific monomial coupling one state to another, so the matrix A = 1_{≠0}(|C|D^T) defines a directed graph of state interactions. The paper reports that this scheme recovers the connectivity of the Lorenz 63 and Lorenz 96 systems with near-perfect accuracy, and that on the non-polynomial Kuramoto oscillator it comes within about 20% of the state-recovery error of an oracle that knows the true model form.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline works only if the noisy gradient returned by the differentiable particle filter, computed from a modest number of particles, is a reliable enough descent direction in a nonconvex landscape; the paper does not prove this, and a biased or trapped gradient could yield a wrong graph even with unlimited observations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any system whose transition function is polynomial, the method yields both the coefficient values and the zero-pattern graph from observations only, without any state labels.
  • The recovered graph A = 1_{≠0}(|C|D^T) provides a directed, Granger-style notion of which state dimensions drive which.
  • Under model mismatch, the polynomial surrogate still supports state estimation; on the Kuramoto oscillator the paper reports state-recovery error only about 20% above an oracle that knows the true model.
  • The telescoping batch schedule removes the likelihood-degeneracy obstacle, so long observation series can be used without vanishing gradients.
  • The approach extends to 20-dimensional states and to over-specified polynomial degrees with only modest loss in support recovery.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reliability of the recovered graph should fall as observation noise grows and as the polynomial degree increases; a natural extension is to report support-recovery F1 as a function of signal-to-noise ratio, which the paper only partially tabulates.
  • Because the estimator is a function-library regression, swapping monomials for trigonometric or exponential basis terms would let the same pipeline handle oscillatory systems; the paper notes this possibility but does not test it.
  • The differentiable particle filter gradient is not proven unbiased, so practitioners should treat recovered coefficients as point estimates and could diagnose instability by comparing multiple random restarts.
  • For very high-dimensional systems the number of monomials M grows combinatorially; the paper's complexity discussion covers parallelization but not whether the statistical estimator remains practical at that scale.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GraphGrad, a method that approximates the transition density of a general state-space model by a polynomial in the latent state, with a coefficient matrix C and a fixed degree matrix D. The coefficients are estimated by minimizing a penalized negative log-likelihood with an L1 penalty, using gradients obtained from a stop-gradient differentiable particle filter and proximal soft-thresholding updates; a batched variant (B-GraphGrad) is introduced to mitigate likelihood degeneracy. The recovered coefficients define an adjacency graph A = 1_{≠0}(abs(C)D^T), which the authors use to infer directed interactions among state dimensions. The paper reports experiments on Lorenz 63, Lorenz 96, and Kuramoto systems, showing accurate sparse recovery and lower RMSE than a dense polynomial MLE.

Significance. If the claimed performance is robust, GraphGrad fills a useful gap: sparse identification of latent polynomial dynamics under partial and noisy observations. The paper has clear strengths: it uses standard external benchmarks (Lorenz 63, Lorenz 96, Kuramoto), tunes the regularization weight λ on a separate synthetic validation system rather than on the test data, demonstrates scalability to a 20-dimensional Lorenz 96 system with 4,620 parameters, and includes a model-mismatch experiment with an oracle TrueMLE baseline. The reported recovery metrics, including F1 = 1.00 at T = 100 in Table I, are strong if reproducible. The computational cost discussion in Section IV-B is also useful. The main weakness is that the theoretical framing of the optimization is not supported by the provided evidence, and several hyperparameters needed to reproduce the experiments are missing.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-D2/III-E, Eqs. (14)-(15), Alg. 2] The claim that Eq. (15) is a stochastic proximal-gradient method whose convergence is covered by [43], [44] is not supported as stated. The gradient in line 5 of Alg. 4 is obtained from the stop-gradient DPF of Alg. 2, where lines 6-7 stop gradients through the resampling weights. Reference [13] establishes differentiability of the forward pass, but neither unbiasedness of the resulting gradient estimator with respect to ∇ℓ nor a variance bound is shown. For the 20-dimensional Lorenz 96 setting with K = 100, the likelihood estimator is high-variance, and the optimization may be minimizing a surrogate objective rather than ℓ_R in Eq. (12). In addition, Eq. (14) uses the Novograd adaptive update, whereas the convergence results cited for stochastic proximal gradient concern plain proximal-gradient iterations. Please provide a bias/variance analysis or a K-sensitivity study of the recovered C and graph, and qualify the convergence statement accordingly.
  2. [V-A, V-B1, V-C, V-D] The central empirical claims are not fully reproducible from the manuscript because key training hyperparameters are not reported. Section V-A fixes B = ceil(T/10), η = 10^-3, and K = 100, but it does not give the number S of inner optimization steps per batch, and the final tuned λ values are never reported. Section V-D does not state the polynomial degree d used for the Kuramoto experiment. The paper also does not provide code or data repositories. Please report S and the tuned λ for every table and figure, state d for the Kuramoto experiment, and make code and data available or provide a complete hyperparameter table.
  3. [V-A, Table IX] The definition and reporting of RMSE need clarification. Section V-A defines numerically zero as |C_ij| < 10^-6 and says RMSE measures entry recovery, while Section V-B1 states that RMSE is computed only on terms recovered as non-zero; these are different quantities. Table IX reports pMLE RMSE 0.32 at T = 25, which is inconsistent with the surrounding values (pMLE is otherwise 1.3-2.5 in that table) and with the text claiming that pMLE performs poorly. Please verify this entry and state precisely how RMSE is computed in each table.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains an incomplete phrase, '...a rich and efficient d of a general SSM', which should be corrected.
  2. [Alg. 1 and Alg. 2, line 10] The weight update writes 'w(i)_t' where the index should presumably be the particle index k; please correct the notation.
  3. [Section V-A] The tables report only point averages over 150 runs for the classification metrics; please add standard deviations or intervals, as is done for RMSE in the figures.
  4. [Section IV-D and Refs] Reference [10] is spelled 'SINdY' in the text; the correct name is SINDy.
  5. [Table IX] For the d = 3 Lorenz 96 results, pMLE at T = 25 is reported as 0.32 yet the same method is reported as 2.5 at T = 50; please check whether this is a typo or an artifact of the RMSE definition.
  6. [Figure 5] The caption says red links correspond to links found with an incorrect monomial, but the figure legend in the right plot is not explicit; please make the blue/red distinction clear in the printed legend.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity detected: GraphGrad's sparse-recovery claims are evaluated against externally defined ground-truth systems, with the target graph defined from estimated coefficients and the differentiable-particle-filter machinery imported from independent prior work.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that noisy partial observations of a nonlinear SSM allow recovery of the polynomial coefficient matrix C and the directed interaction graph A = 1(abs(C)D^T). This claim is not equivalent to the method's inputs by construction. The target quantities are defined by the data-generating systems (Lorenz 63, Lorenz 96, Kuramoto) independently of the estimator: the ground-truth C is read off the known ODEs in Sec. III-C and Sec. V, and A is then computed from C via the paper's graphical interpretation. The estimator optimizes the penalized negative log-likelihood (Eq. (10)-(15)) using gradients from a differentiable particle filter; the recovered C is compared to this external ground truth, so successful recovery is an empirical result, not a tautology. The tunable penalty lambda is selected on a separate synthetic system that is not used for the reported test data, which further distances the fit from the evaluation. Self-citation is limited to footnote 1, where the authors' ICASSP paper [16] is disclosed as a prior limited version; it is not invoked as the justification for any theorem or as evidence for the recovery results. The load-bearing particle-filter machinery is attributed to [13] (Scibior and Wood), independent prior work, and the forward pass of the filter is unchanged by the stop-gradient modification. Concerns raised by the skeptic, that the stop-gradient DPF gradient may be biased or that stochastic proximal gradient convergence requires assumptions not verified for K=100 in Lorenz 96, are substantive correctness risks about optimization behavior, not instances of derivation-by-construction, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation load-bearing circularity. No circular step satisfying the quoted-evidence standard was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's central claim rests on hand-chosen hyperparameters (lambda, d, B, S, K, eta), on the expressiveness of the polynomial ansatz, and on domain assumptions about known observation models, valid biased-gradient descent, and a faithful simulation benchmark. No new physical or statistical entities are introduced; the coefficient matrix C, degree matrix D, and derived adjacency graph A are all constructed from existing quantities.

free parameters (6)
  • L1 penalty weight lambda = tuned per system via 10 bisection iterations over exponent range [-5,2]
    Controls the sparsity that the whole recovery claim depends on; tuned on a separate synthetic system (Sec. V-A).
  • Maximum polynomial degree d = 2 or 3 in experiments
    Chosen by the user; must match or exceed the true polynomial degree for exact recovery, so it is a load-bearing modeling choice.
  • Batch count schedule B = ceil(T/10)
    Hand-designed schedule that mitigates likelihood degeneracy; no principled criterion is given for selecting B.
  • Inner optimization steps S per batch = not reported
    Required input of Algorithms 4 and 5 and used in all experiments, but its value is never stated in Section V-A.
  • Particle count K = 100
    Gradient estimator noise and likelihood accuracy depend on K; no sensitivity study is reported.
  • Learning rate eta = 10^-3
    Fixed learning rate for the Novograd optimizer; no schedule or tuning is described.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The stop-gradient differentiable particle filter provides likelihood gradient estimates accurate enough for stochastic first-order optimization.
    Invoked in Sec. III-D1 to justify backpropagating through Alg. 2; [13] establishes differentiability but not unbiasedness or variance bounds.
  • ad hoc to paper Stochastic proximal gradient convergence guarantees apply to the penalized objective (12).
    Sec. III-D2 cites [43,44]; those results do not cover the nonconvex, parameter-dependent filtering objective or the biased DPF gradient.
  • domain assumption The transition is exactly or well approximated by a degree-d polynomial in the state.
    Central model class in Eq. (7); exact for Lorenz 63/96 and approximate for Kuramoto, with no approximation-error bounds given for the non-polynomial case.
  • domain assumption Observation model p(yt|xt) and state and observation noise covariances Sigma_v and Sigma_r are known.
    Section IV-A lists these as prerequisites; in the experiments they are set equal to the simulation values, which is the favorable case.
  • domain assumption Euler-discretized chaotic ODEs with independent Gaussian noise faithfully represent the continuous dynamics at the chosen timestep.
    Experiments use timesteps 0.025 or 0.05 with additive noise; discretization error is not quantified as part of the benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GraphGrad: Efficient Estimation of Sparse Polynomial Representations for General State-Space Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JUX5IRER

@misc{pith2026241115637,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GraphGrad: Efficient Estimation of Sparse Polynomial Representations for General State-Space Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JUX5IRER}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15637}
}
read the original abstract

State-space models (SSMs) are a powerful statistical tool for modelling time-varying systems via a latent state. In these models, the latent state is never directly observed. Instead, a sequence of observations related to the state is available. The state-space model is defined by the state dynamics and the observation model, both of which are described by parametric distributions. Estimation of parameters of these distributions is a very challenging, but essential, task for performing inference and prediction. Furthermore, it is typical that not all states of the system interact. We can therefore encode the interaction of the states via a graph, usually not fully connected. However, most parameter estimation methods do not take advantage of this feature. In this work, we propose GraphGrad, a fully automatic approach for obtaining sparse estimates of the state interactions of a non-linear state-space model via a polynomial approximation. This novel methodology unveils the latent structure of the data-generating process, allowing us to infer both the structure and value of a rich and efficient parameterisation of a general state-space model. Our method utilises a differentiable particle filter to optimise a Monte Carlo likelihood estimator. It also promotes sparsity in the estimated system through the use of suitable proximity updates, known to be more efficient and stable than subgradient methods. As shown in our paper, a number of well-known dynamical systems can be accurately represented and recovered by our method, providing basis for application to real-world scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15637 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graph and adjacency matrix encoding the connectivity of the Lorenz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of B-GraphGrad with pMLE over variable series length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison of B-GraphGrad with pMLE over variable noise mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Graph encoding the connectivity of the Lorenz 96 system for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of B-GraphGrad with pMLE over variable series length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of B-GraphGrad with pMLE and TrueMLE over variable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Learning a sparse polynomial approximation to the transition function of general state-space models,

    B. Cox, E. Chouzenoux, and V . Elvira, “Learning a sparse polynomial approximation to the transition function of general state-space models,” in ICASSP 2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [43]

    Convergence of stochastic proximal gradient algorithm,

    L. Rosasco, S. Villa, and B. C. V˜u, “Convergence of stochastic proximal gradient algorithm,” Applied Mathematics & Optimization , vol. 82, pp. 891–917, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [44]

    Stochastic approximations and perturbations in forward-backward splitting for monotone operators,

    P. L. Combettes and J.-C. Pesquet, “Stochastic approximations and perturbations in forward-backward splitting for monotone operators,”Pure and Applied Functional Analysis, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 13–37, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [13]

    Differentiable particle filtering without modify- ing the forward pass,

    A. ´Scibior and F. Wood, “Differentiable particle filtering without modify- ing the forward pass,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10314, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  5. [1]

    A survey of recent advances in particle filters and remaining challenges for multitarget tracking,

    X. Wang, T. Li, S. Sun, and J. M. Corchado, “A survey of recent advances in particle filters and remaining challenges for multitarget tracking,” Sensors, vol. 17, no. 12, p. 2707, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [2]

    Statistical modelling of individual animal movement: an overview of key methods and a discussion of practical challenges,

    T. A. Patterson, A. Parton, R. Langrock, P. G. Blackwell, L. Thomas, and R. King, “Statistical modelling of individual animal movement: an overview of key methods and a discussion of practical challenges,”AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, vol. 101, pp. 399–438, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [3]

    State-space models for ecological time-series data: Practical model-fitting,

    K. Newman, R. King, V . Elvira, P. de Valpine, R. S. McCrea, and B. J. Morgan, “State-space models for ecological time-series data: Practical model-fitting,” Methods in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 26– 42, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [4]

    Particle learning for Bayesian semi-parametric stochastic volatility model,

    A. Virbickait˙e, H. F. Lopes, M. C. Aus´ın, and P. Galeano, “Particle learning for Bayesian semi-parametric stochastic volatility model,” Econometric Reviews, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 49 references
  1. [5]

    Operational implementa- tion of a hybrid ensemble/4d-Var global data assimilation system at the Met Office,

    A. M. Clayton, A. C. Lorenc, and D. M. Barker, “Operational implementa- tion of a hybrid ensemble/4d-Var global data assimilation system at the Met Office,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 139, no. 675, pp. 1445–1461, 2013

    2013

  2. [6]

    A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems,

    R. E. Kalman, “A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems,” Transactions of the ASME–Journal of Basic Engineering , vol. 82, no. Series D, pp. 35–45, 1960

    1960

  3. [7]

    Maximum likelihood estimates of linear dynamic systems,

    H. E. Rauch, F. Tung, and C. T. Striebel, “Maximum likelihood estimates of linear dynamic systems,” AIAA Journal, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 1445–1450, 1965

    1965

  4. [8]

    The unscented Kalman filter for nonlinear estimation,

    E. A. Wan and R. Van Der Merwe, “The unscented Kalman filter for nonlinear estimation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 2000 Adaptive Systems for Signal Processing, Communications, and Control Symposium (Cat. No. 00EX373). IEEE, 2000, pp. 153–158

    2000

  5. [9]

    A tutorial on particle filtering and smoothing: Fifteen years later,

    A. Doucet, A. M. Johansen et al., “A tutorial on particle filtering and smoothing: Fifteen years later,” Handbook of nonlinear filtering, vol. 12, no. 656-704, p. 3, 2009

    2009

  6. [10]

    Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems,

    S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, “Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems,” Proceedings of the national academy of sciences , vol. 113, no. 15, pp. 3932–3937, 2016

    2016

  7. [11]

    Particle filter networks with application to visual localization,

    P. Karkus, D. Hsu, and W. S. Lee, “Particle filter networks with application to visual localization,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2018, pp. 169–178

    2018

  8. [12]

    Differentiable particle filtering via entropy-regularized optimal transport,

    A. Corenflos, J. Thornton, A. Doucet, and G. Deligiannidis, “Differentiable particle filtering via entropy-regularized optimal transport,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.07850, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Deterministic nonperiodic flow,

    E. N. Lorenz, “Deterministic nonperiodic flow,”Journal of atmospheric sciences, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 130–141, 1963

    1963

  10. [15]

    Predictability: A problem partly solved,

    ——, “Predictability: A problem partly solved,” in Proc. Seminar on predictability, vol. 1, no. 1. Reading, 1996

    1996

  11. [17]

    S¨arkk¨a, Bayesian Filtering and Smoothing

    S. S¨arkk¨a, Bayesian Filtering and Smoothing . Cambridge University Press, 2013

    2013

  12. [18]

    Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso,

    R. Tibshirani, “Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 267–288, 1996

    1996

  13. [19]

    Graphical inference in linear-Gaussian state-space models,

    V . Elvira and ´E. Chouzenoux, “Graphical inference in linear-Gaussian state-space models,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 70, pp. 4757–4771, 2022

    2022

  14. [20]

    Importance sampling: a review,

    S. T. Tokdar and R. E. Kass, “Importance sampling: a review,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 54– 60, 2010

    2010

  15. [21]

    Particle Markov chain Monte Carlo methods,

    C. Andrieu, A. Doucet, and R. Holenstein, “Particle Markov chain Monte Carlo methods,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 269–342, 2010

    2010

  16. [22]

    Variational inference: A review for statisticians,

    D. M. Blei, A. Kucukelbir, and J. D. McAuliffe, “Variational inference: A review for statisticians,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 112, no. 518, pp. 859–877, 2017

    2017

  17. [23]

    Sparse bayesian estimation of parameters in linear- gaussian state-space models,

    B. Cox and V . Elvira, “Sparse bayesian estimation of parameters in linear- gaussian state-space models,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 71, pp. 1922–1937, 2023

    1922

  18. [24]

    An overview of differentiable particle filters for data- adaptive sequential Bayesian inference,

    X. Chen and Y . Li, “An overview of differentiable particle filters for data- adaptive sequential Bayesian inference,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09639, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Differentiable bootstrap particle filters for regime-switching models,

    W. Li, X. Chen, W. Wang, V . Elvira, and Y . Li, “Differentiable bootstrap particle filters for regime-switching models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10319, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Jasper: An end-to-end convolutional neural acoustic model,

    J. Li, V . Lavrukhin, B. Ginsburg, R. Leary, O. Kuchaiev, J. M. Cohen, H. Nguyen, and R. T. Gadde, “Jasper: An end-to-end convolutional neural acoustic model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03288, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Stochastic self-modulation of waves in nonequilibrium media,

    M. I. Rabinovich and A. L. Fabrikant, “Stochastic self-modulation of waves in nonequilibrium media,”J. Exp. Theor. Phys, vol. 77, pp. 617–629, 1979

    1979

  23. [29]

    Lotka-volterra population models,

    P. J. Wangersky, “Lotka-volterra population models,”Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol. 9, pp. 189–218, 1978

    1978

  24. [30]

    Compartmental models in epidemiology,

    F. Brauer, “Compartmental models in epidemiology,” Mathematical epidemiology, pp. 19–79, 2008

    2008

  25. [31]

    Symmetry breaking instabilities in dissipative systems. ii,

    I. Prigogine and R. Lefever, “Symmetry breaking instabilities in dissipative systems. ii,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 1695– 1700, 1968

    1968

  26. [32]

    Oscillations in chemical systems. iv. limit cycle behavior in a model of a real chemical reaction,

    R. J. Field and R. M. Noyes, “Oscillations in chemical systems. iv. limit cycle behavior in a model of a real chemical reaction,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 1877–1884, 1974

    1974

  27. [33]

    Graphit: Iterative reweighted l1 algorithm for sparse graph inference in state-space models,

    E. Chouzenoux and V . Elvira, “Graphit: Iterative reweighted l1 algorithm for sparse graph inference in state-space models,” in ICASSP 2023- 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  28. [34]

    Sparse graphical linear dynamical systems,

    ——, “Sparse graphical linear dynamical systems,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 25, no. 223, pp. 1–53, 2024

    2024

  29. [35]

    Graphical inference in non-markovian linear-gaussian state-space models,

    ——, “Graphical inference in non-markovian linear-gaussian state-space models,” in ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acous- tics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2024, pp. 13 141– 13 145

    2024

  30. [36]

    A backpropagation algorithm for inferring disentagled nodal dynamics and connectivity structure of dynamical networks,

    E. Tan, D. Corrˆea, T. Stemler, and M. Small, “A backpropagation algorithm for inferring disentagled nodal dynamics and connectivity structure of dynamical networks,” IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 613–624, 2024

    2024

  31. [37]

    Sparse graphical linear dynamical systems,

    E. Chouzenoux and V . Elvira, “Sparse graphical linear dynamical systems,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 25, no. 223, pp. 1–53, 2024

    2024

  32. [38]

    Graph state-space models,

    D. Zambon, A. Cini, L. Livi, and C. Alippi, “Graph state-space models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01741, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Connecting the dots: Identifying network structure via graph signal processing,

    G. Mateos, S. Segarra, A. G. Marques, and A. Ribeiro, “Connecting the dots: Identifying network structure via graph signal processing,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 16–43, 2019

    2019

  34. [40]

    Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks,

    D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, “Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks,” Nature, vol. 393, no. 6684, pp. 440–442, 1998. COX, CHOUZENOUX, and ELVIRA: EFFICIENT ESTIMATION OF SPARSE POLYNOMIAL REPRESENTATIONS FOR GENERAL STATE-SPACE MODELS 15

    1998

  35. [41]

    Stochastic gradient methods with layer-wise adaptive moments for training of deep networks,

    B. Ginsburg, P. Castonguay, O. Hrinchuk, O. Kuchaiev, V . Lavrukhin, R. Leary, J. Li, H. Nguyen, and J. M. Cohen, “Stochastic gradient methods with layer-wise adaptive moments for training of deep networks,” CoRR, vol. abs/1905.11286, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.or...

    1905 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Proximal splitting methods in signal processing,

    P. L. Combettes and J.-C. Pesquet, “Proximal splitting methods in signal processing,” Fixed-Point Algorithms for Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering, pp. 185–212, 2011

    2011

  37. [45]

    JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs,

    J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, M. J. Johnson, C. Leary, D. Maclaurin, G. Necula, A. Paszke, J. VanderPlas, S. Wanderman-Milne, and Q. Zhang, “JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs,” 2018. [Online]. Available: http://github.com/google/jax

    2018

  38. [46]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga et al., “Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Optimization with sparsity-inducing penalties,

    F. Bach, R. Jenatton, J. Mairal, G. Obozinski et al. , “Optimization with sparsity-inducing penalties,” Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–106, 2012

    2012

  40. [48]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes,

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kuramoto,Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence

    Y . Kuramoto,Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence. Springer, 1984

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.