Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Calibrated Bayesian inference for random fields on large irregular domains using the debiased spatial Whittle likelihood

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A curvature adjustment to the debiased spatial Whittle likelihood makes Bayesian credible sets for covariance parameters achieve their nominal coverage on large and irregular grids.

desk verdict A solid, practical paper that makes the composite-likelihood curvature adjustment work for the debiased spatial Whittle likelihood, but the headline calibration claim is only checked marginally, not jointly. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23330 v1 pith:XYVEES4Q submitted 2025-05-29 stat.ME

Thomas Goodwin , Arthur Guillaumin , Matias Quiroz , Mattias Villani , Robert Kohn This is my paper
classification stat.ME MSC 62M4062F1562M30
keywords BayesiancalibrationdebiasedWhittlelikelihoodspatialrandomfieldscompositecurvatureadjustmentposteriorcoveragefrequencydomainMatérncovariance
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

The paper addresses a gap in fast Bayesian inference for spatial data: the debiased Whittle likelihood, a frequency-domain approximation that replaces the spectral density with the expected periodogram and costs only $O(n \log n)$, is a pseudo-likelihood whose posterior credible sets are systematically too small. The authors adapt a curvature adjustment from the composite-likelihood literature, rescaling the argument of the debiased Whittle likelihood around the debiased Whittle estimator to produce two adjusted posteriors whose spread matches the estimator's true sampling variability. In simulation studies on square grids up to 1024 by 1024 and on a French-shaped irregular domain, the adjusted posteriors achieve near-uniform coverage of their credible sets, while the unadjusted posterior badly misses its nominal coverage. The method is illustrated on two satellite datasets, sea surface temperature and photosynthetically active radiation, where it reshapes the posterior and improves model fit relative to the standard Whittle and unadjusted debiased Whittle posteriors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the curvature-adjusted debiased Whittle likelihood, $\ell_{\mathrm{dW}}^{(i)}(\theta) = \ell_{\mathrm{dW}}(\theta^*)$ with $\theta^* = \hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{dW}} + C_i(\theta - \hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{dW}})$, an affine rescaling of the parameter argument around the debiased Whittle estimator $\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{dW}}$. The matrix $C_i$ is chosen so the adjusted likelihood's curvature at the estimator matches the inverse sandwich covariance $G(\theta_0) = H(\theta_0)J(\theta_0)^{-1}H(\theta_0)$ of the estimator's asymptotic distribution, following the Bernstein–von Mises theorem for misspecified models. Because the exact sandwich is intractable on large grids, $C_1$ estimates $J$ from $M$ Monte Carlo gradients of the composite score, and $C_2$ estimates the estimator's sampling covariance from $M$ re-simulated fields combined with the observed Fisher information. The adjusted likelihood plugs into a random-walk Metropolis-Hastings sampler, preserving the $O(n \log n)$ cost of the likelihood evaluations.

What would settle it

Run the paper's simulation-based coverage check on a 128 by 128 grid where the Matérn smoothness parameter is estimated jointly with range and amplitude under a penalised-complexity prior; if the adjusted posterior quantiles depart systematically from uniformity, the calibration claim does not hold at that grid size, where the paper's simulations start only at 256 by 256.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a stationary Gaussian random field on a large grid, the posterior obtained by naively treating the debiased spatial Whittle likelihood as a true likelihood is asymptotically normal with covariance $|n|^{-1}H^{-1}$, while the debiased Whittle maximum-likelihood estimator has sampling covariance $|n|^{-1}G^{-1}$ with sandwich matrix $G = HJ^{-1}H$; the mismatch makes the naive posterior over-concentrated. The paper's central claim is that replacing the likelihood argument by the adjusted expression $\ell_{\mathrm{dW}}^{(i)}(\theta) = \ell_{\mathrm{dW}}(\theta^*)$ with $\theta^* = \hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{dW}} + C_i(\theta - \hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{dW}})$, where $C_1$ is built from a Monte Carlo estimate of the score covariance $J$ and $C_2$ from a Monte Carlo estimate of the estimator's sampling covariance plus the observed Fisher information, aligns the posterior curvature with $G^{-1}$. The paper shows empirically, through a simulation-based posterior-quantile calibration procedure, that the adjusted posteriors are well calibrated (near-uniform coverage) for grid sizes 512 by 512 and 1024 by 1024, and for an irregular domain with 62 percent missing points, while the unadjusted posterior's credible sets are far from their nominal level.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the Gaussian asymptotic approximation of the unadjusted debiased Whittle posterior is already accurate at the grid sizes used in practice, and that the Monte Carlo estimates of the score covariance or the estimator's sampling variance have converged for the chosen number of simulated datasets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On grids around 512 by 512 and larger, credible intervals from the adjusted debiased Whittle posterior can be trusted to have near their nominal coverage, after paying a one-time Monte Carlo cost to build the adjustment matrix.
  • The two adjustments cover complementary settings: C1 is more robust to large range parameters and uses analytic derivatives of the covariance, while C2 handles irregular domains, missing data, and the joint estimation of Matérn smoothness.
  • The unadjusted debiased Whittle posterior is systematically over-concentrated, so any Bayesian uncertainty quantification built on it without adjustment will understate uncertainty for the covariance parameters.
  • In the two real data applications, the adjusted posteriors are wider than the unadjusted debiased Whittle posteriors and differ in location from the standard Whittle posteriors, changing the practical conclusions about the spatial range and amplitude.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same curvature adjustment should transfer directly to one-dimensional time series, where the debiased Whittle likelihood with this calibration could provide well-calibrated Bayesian credible intervals for short series; the paper lists this direction but does not test it.
  • A cheap practical safeguard is to run the paper's own coverage check on a handful of prior draws before a full analysis, letting users verify that the Monte Carlo sample size used to build the adjustment is large enough; the paper only partially probes this sensitivity.
  • Because the adjustment is built from the point estimate of the parameters and the observed Fisher information, the calibrated posterior is data-dependent in a stronger sense than an ordinary likelihood posterior; this suggests re-running the coverage check whenever the dataset, grid geometry, or prior changes substantially.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two Monte Carlo-based curvature adjustments, C1 and C2, of the debiased spatial Whittle likelihood for Bayesian inference on large stationary random fields. The adjustments follow Ribatet et al. (2012): they rescale the debiased Whittle posterior so that its asymptotic covariance matches the sandwich covariance of the debiased Whittle maximum likelihood estimator. C1 estimates the score covariance J and uses the analytic Hessian H; C2 directly estimates the sampling distribution of the estimator and uses the observed Fisher information. The method is validated in simulation studies with square grids of increasing size, a PC prior, and an irregular domain, using the Monahan-Boos/Cook et al. posterior-quantile checks, and it is applied to sea surface temperature and PAR data. The central claim is that the adjusted posteriors are well-calibrated as measured by coverage properties of credible sets while retaining O(n log n) computation.

Significance. Scalable Bayesian inference for spatial covariance parameters is an area of active interest, and the paper offers a practical solution that combines the debiased Whittle likelihood with composite-likelihood calibration. The Monte Carlo estimation of the sandwich matrix is a reasonable parametric-bootstrap approach and avoids the intractable direct computation of the score variance. The simulation evidence for marginal calibration on large square grids is strong, and the two data applications demonstrate that the method handles missing values and moderately large grids. The paper also gives useful practical guidance on when to prefer C1 over C2. However, the headline calibration claim is only partially supported: the validation is marginal rather than joint, and one simulation setting explicitly shows residual miscalibration in the irregular-domain case. If joint calibration is established or the claims are appropriately qualified, the contribution would be a useful addition to the spatial statistics literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.5, Eq. (26), Figures 3–5] The calibration validation is marginal only. The statistic U^(i) in Eq. (26) is computed for each scalar component of θ (ρ and σ), and the QQ-plots are componentwise. The abstract and Section 3.1 define validity by coverage of posterior sets K_α(X_s), which for p > 1 are sets in R^p. Marginal posterior quantile calibration is necessary but not sufficient: if C_i correctly inflates marginal variances but leaves the correlation between ρ and σ incorrect, all marginal QQ-plots can look uniform while joint credible sets are systematically miscalibrated. Because the adjustment is matrix-valued and explicitly targets the joint covariance G = H J^{-1} H, the paper should report joint coverage, for example empirical coverage of posterior ellipsoids based on the estimated posterior covariance or a multivariate version of the Monahan-Boos check.
  2. [3.5, Simulation 2, Figure 4] The authors state that for the irregular France domain, both adjustments are 'indistinguishable from a standard uniform between (0, 0.5)' but that the upper half interval shows more concentration of mass, with ρ worse than σ. This is an explicit deviation from the calibration claim in exactly one of the settings the paper advertises (irregular domains). The abstract's unconditional statement that the adjustment gives 'a well-calibrated Bayesian posterior' should either be supported by an additional correction for irregular domains, restricted to the settings where calibration is demonstrated, or accompanied by diagnostics (e.g., larger K, larger M, or alternative domain shapes) showing that the deviation is Monte Carlo noise rather than a systematic effect.
  3. [3.2, Eq. (17); Conclusion] The theoretical basis for the adjustment is not established for this setting. Equation (17) is imported from composite-likelihood Bernstein-von Mises theory (Ribatet et al., 2012; Kleijn and van der Vaart, 2012). For the spatial debiased Whittle likelihood, the summands in Eq. (8) are not independent: periodogram ordinates at Fourier frequencies are correlated at finite n, and the asymptotic efficiency result for the MdWLE in Guillaumin et al. (2022) does not by itself imply the posterior shape in Eq. (17). The paper does not verify Eq. (17) for finite grids except through marginal QQ-plots. Consequently, the conclusion's claim that the adjustments 'asymptotically satisfy the Bernstein Von-Mises theorem' is not supported by the presented theory. The authors should state the regularity conditions under which Eq. (17) holds for the debiased Whittle likelihood, cite a theorem that covers dependent data, or weaken the theoretical claim and present the method as an empirically calibrated adjustment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3.5] The number K of prior draws used in the Monahan-Boos validation is not reported, and the symbol M is used both for the number of simulated datasets used to estimate the adjustment matrices (Algorithms 1 and 2) and for the number of posterior samples used to estimate U^(i). Please report K and disambiguate the two uses of M.
  2. [4.1] There is a contradiction: the text says the C1 adjustment cannot be applied because it requires derivatives of the Matérn covariance, but then states 'We simulate M = 500 datasets to compute the adjustment C1 matrix.' This should presumably refer to C2.
  3. [3.4, last paragraph] The text says the PC prior is 'described in more detail in Section 3'; the prior is actually described in Section 3.5 (Simulation 3). The cross-reference should be corrected.
  4. [3.3, Eq. (24)] Equation (24) appears to contain a typographical bracket: 'fM_A^T fM_A = [G(θ), cM^T cM = H(θ)' presumably should read 'fM_A^T fM_A = G(θ)' and 'cM^T cM = H(θ)'.
  5. [4.2 and Figure 11] There are typos in Section 4.2 ('Similiar', 'which it the conditional normal density'), and Figure 11 uses iterations 3000, 6000, and 9000; the caption should clarify whether these are thinned MCMC iterations or consecutive draws after burn-in.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the calibration construction does not feed its own coverage target back into the fit, and the headline claim rests on external simulation benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The adjusted likelihood (25) is the Ribatet et al. (2012) composite-likelihood curvature adjustment applied to the debiased Whittle likelihood, and the correction matrices are estimated by parametric bootstrap at the debiased Whittle estimator. The claimed calibration is then checked by the Monahan-Boos / Cook et al. posterior-quantile procedure (26), which is an external benchmark comparing U^(i) to Uniform(0,1) on simulated data drawn from the prior. The coverage target is not used as an input to the construction of C1 or C2: the sandwich quantities H, J and Var[\hat\theta_dW] are estimated from simulated data or analytical gradients, not from the coverage statistic U. The asymptotic justification is imported from Ribatet et al. (2012) and Kleijn and van der Vaart (2012), both external to this paper's authors. The one self-citation, Guillaumin et al. (2022), supplies the debiased Whittle likelihood and the asymptotic variance of its estimator; that is a published theorem with proofs and independent simulation, and the present paper's contribution is the Bayesian calibration, not the debiased Whittle estimator itself. Thus no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs. A separate completeness concern, that only marginal posterior quantiles are reported rather than joint credible-set coverage, is a validation gap and not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard spectral assumptions plus the composite-likelihood asymptotic approximation and the reliability of Monte Carlo estimates. The paper does not introduce new entities.

free parameters (2)
  • Monte Carlo sample size M = M=250, 500, 1000
    Chosen by the authors for the adjustments; the method relies on M being large enough for stable estimates, but no formal convergence criterion is given.
  • Nugget variance σ²ε = 1e-10 (SST), 0.001 (PAR)
    Fixed by initial optimization, stated in Sections 4.1 and 4.2; not part of the target parameter vector.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The composite posterior is approximately N(θ0, |n|^{-1}H^{-1}) (Eq. 17)
    This asymptotic approximation from Ribatet et al. (2012) is the basis for the curvature adjustment; it is not proven for the debiased Whittle likelihood at finite grid sizes.
  • domain assumption The debiased Whittle likelihood is a valid composite likelihood with H ≠ J
    This follows from Guillaumin et al. (2022), a self-cited prior work; the present paper relies on it for the sandwich structure.
  • domain assumption Stationarity and square-summable covariance
    Standard assumption for spectral methods, stated in Section 2.1; real data are detrended to approximate stationarity.
  • ad hoc to paper Monte Carlo estimates of J and G converge quickly enough with M
    The paper uses M=250 to 1000 and notes variance considerations but provides no formal diagnostic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Calibrated Bayesian inference for random fields on large irregular domains using the debiased spatial Whittle likelihood." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XYVEES4Q

@misc{pith2026250523330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Calibrated Bayesian inference for random fields on large irregular domains using the debiased spatial Whittle likelihood},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XYVEES4Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23330}
}
abstract

Bayesian inference for stationary random fields is computationally demanding. Whittle-type likelihoods in the frequency domain based on the fast Fourier Transform (FFT) have several appealing features: i) low computational complexity of only $\mathcal{O}(n \log n)$, where $n$ is the number of spatial locations, ii) robustness to assumptions of the data-generating process, iii) ability to handle missing data and irregularly spaced domains, and iv) flexibility in modelling the covariance function via the spectral density directly in the spectral domain. It is well known, however, that the Whittle likelihood suffers from bias and low efficiency for spatial data. The debiased Whittle likelihood is a recently proposed alternative with better frequentist properties. We propose a methodology for Bayesian inference for stationary random fields using the debiased spatial Whittle likelihood, with an adjustment from the composite likelihood literature. The adjustment is shown to give a well-calibrated Bayesian posterior as measured by coverage properties of credible sets, without sacrificing the quasi-linear computation time. We apply the method to simulated data and two real datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23330 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Kernel density estimates of the marginal posteriors based on different likelihoods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Kernel density estimates of the marginal posteriors based on different likelihoods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulation 1. Standard uniform QQ-plots to quantify the coverage of quasi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation 2. Standard uniform QQ-plots to quantify the coverage of quasi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation 3. Standard uniform QQ-plots to quantify the coverage of quasi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sea surface temperatures over the Pacific Ocean. The left plots show the processed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sea surface temperatures: Kernel density estimates of the marginal posteriors of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Residual spectrum rn(ω) in (4.1). The left plot is the idealized iid standard uniform, the middle plot is the standard Whittle, and the right plot is C2 adjusted debiased Whittle. The estimated spectra are based on the posterior mean. and the C2-adjusted debiased Whitt…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Photosyntehtically active radiation (PAR) data over the coast of Mexico in Baja [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Kernel density estimates of the marginal posteriors for the photosynthetically [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Three draws from the posterior predictive density with an exponential covariance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akaike, H. (1973). Block Toeplitz matrix inversion . SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 24(2):234--241

    work page 1973

  2. [2]

    Anitescu, M., Chen, J., and Stein, M. L. (2017). An inversion-free estimating equations approach for G aussian process models. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 26(1):98--107

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    M., Wikle, C

    Berliner, L. M., Wikle, C. K., and Cressie, N. (2000). Long-lead prediction of Pacific SSTs via Bayesian dynamic modeling . Journal of Climate , 13(22):3953--3968

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    G., Ickstadt, K., Wolpert, R

    Best, N. G., Ickstadt, K., Wolpert, R. L., and Briggs, D. J. (2001). Combining models of health and exposure data: the SAVIAH study. In Spatial Epidemiology: Methods and Applications . Oxford University Press

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    and Gaetan, C

    Bevilacqua, M. and Gaetan, C. (2015). Comparing composite likelihood methods based on pairs for spatial G aussian random fields. Statistics and Computing , 25:877--892

    2015

  6. [6]

    Brockwell, P. J. and Davis, R. A. (2009). Time Series: Theory and Methods . Springer Science & Business Media

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    R., Gelman, A., and Rubin, D

    Cook, S. R., Gelman, A., and Rubin, D. B. (2006). Validation of software for Bayesian models using posterior quantiles . Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 15(3):675--692

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Cressie, N. (1989). Geostatistics. The American Statistician , 43(4):197--202

    work page 1989

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    and K \"u nsch, H

    Dahlhaus, R. and K \"u nsch, H. (1987). Edge effects and efficient parameter estimation for stationary random fields. Biometrika , 74(4):877--882

    1987

  2. [10]

    and Han, Z

    De Oliveira, V. and Han, Z. (2022). On information about covariance parameters in Gaussian M \'a tern random fields . Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics , 27(4):690--712

    2022

  3. [11]

    Dietrich, C. R. and Newsam, G. N. (1997). Fast and exact simulation of stationary Gaussian processes through circulant embedding of the covariance matrix . SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 18(4):1088--1107

    1997

  4. [12]

    T., Drovandi, C., and Kohn, R

    Frazier, D. T., Drovandi, C., and Kohn, R. (2023). Calibrated generalized B ayesian inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15485

    2023

  5. [13]

    Fuentes, M. (2007). Approximate likelihood for large irregularly spaced spatial data. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 102(477):321--331

    2007

  6. [14]

    Fuglstad, G.-A., Simpson, D., Lindgren, F., and Rue, H. (2019). Constructing priors that penalize the complexity of G aussian random fields. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 114(525):445--452

    2019

  7. [15]

    E., Diggle, P., Guttorp, P., and Fuentes, M

    Gelfand, A. E., Diggle, P., Guttorp, P., and Fuentes, M. (2010). Handbook of Spatial Statistics . CRC press

    2010

  8. [16]

    J., Marin, O., Schanen, M., and Stein, M

    Geoga, C. J., Marin, O., Schanen, M., and Stein, M. L. (2023). Fitting Mat \'e rn smoothness parameters using automatic differentiation . Statistics and Computing , 33(2):48

    2023

  9. [17]

    P., Sykulski, A

    Guillaumin, A. P., Sykulski, A. M., Olhede, S. C., and Simons, F. J. (2022). The debiased spatial W hittle likelihood. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 84(4):1526--1557

    2022

  10. [18]

    Guilleminot, J. (2020). Modeling non-Gaussian random fields of material properties in multiscale mechanics of materials . In Uncertainty Quantification in Multiscale Materials Modeling , pages 385--420. Woodhead Publishing

    2020

  11. [19]

    and Fuentes, M

    Guinness, J. and Fuentes, M. (2017). Circulant embedding of approximate covariances for inference from G aussian data on large lattices. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 26(1):88--97

    2017

  12. [20]

    Guyon, X. (1982). Parameter estimation for a stationary process on a d-dimensional lattice. Biometrika , 69(1):95--105

    1982

  13. [21]

    Heyde, C. C. (1997). Quasi-Likelihood and its Application: A General Approach to Optimal Parameter Estimation . Springer

    1997

  14. [22]

    and Cressie, N

    Hrafnkelsson, B. and Cressie, N. (2003). Hierarchical modeling of count data with application to nuclear fall-out. Environmental and Ecological Statistics , 10:179--200

    2003

  15. [23]

    and Guinness, J

    Katzfuss, M. and Guinness, J. (2021). A general framework for V ecchia approximations of G aussian processes. Statistical Science , 36(1):124 -- 141

    2021

  16. [24]

    Kent, J. T. and Mardia, K. V. (1996). Spectral and circulant approximations to the likelihood for stationary Gaussian random fields . Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , 50(3):379--394

    1996

  17. [25]

    and van der Vaart, A

    Kleijn, B. and van der Vaart, A. (2012). The Bernstein-Von-Mises theorem under misspecification . Electronic Journal of Statistics , 6:354--381

    2012

  18. [26]

    Körner, T. W. (1988). Fourier Analysis . Cambridge University Press

    1988

  19. [27]

    Lindgren, F., Rue, H., and Lindstr \"o m, J. (2011). An explicit link between G aussian fields and G aussian M arkov random fields: the stochastic partial differential equation approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 73(4):423--498

    2011

  20. [28]

    Matheron, G. (1963). Principles of geostatistics. Economic Geology , 58(8):1246--1266

    1963

  21. [29]

    and Yajima, Y

    Matsuda, Y. and Yajima, Y. (2009). Fourier analysis of irregularly spaced data on R^d . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 71(1):191--217

    2009

  22. [30]

    H., Kim, S., B \"u rkner, P., Huurre, N., Faltejskov \'a , K., Gelman, A., and Vehtari, A

    Modr \'a k, M., Moon, A. H., Kim, S., B \"u rkner, P., Huurre, N., Faltejskov \'a , K., Gelman, A., and Vehtari, A. (2023). Simulation-based calibration checking for Bayesian computation: The choice of test quantities shapes sensitivity . Bayesian Analysis , 1(1):1--28

    2023

  23. [31]

    Monahan, J. F. and Boos, D. D. (1992). Proper likelihoods for Bayesian analysis . Biometrika , 79(2):271--278

    1992

  24. [32]

    Parzen, E. (1963). On spectral analysis with missing observations and amplitude modulation. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A (1961-2002) , 25(4):383--392

    1963

  25. [33]

    Percival, D. B. and Walden, A. T. (1993). Spectral Analysis for Physical Applications . Cambridge University Press

    1993

  26. [34]

    Quiroz, M., Kohn, R., Villani, M., and Tran, M.-N. (2019). Speeding up MCMC by efficient data subsampling . Journal of the American Statistical Association , 114(526):831--843

    2019

  27. [35]

    Quiroz, M., Tran, M.-N., Villani, M., Kohn, R., and Dang, K.-D. (2021). The block- P oisson estimator for optimally tuned exact subsampling MCMC . Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 30(4):877--888

    2021

  28. [36]

    Rasmussen, C. E. and Williams, C. K. (2006). Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning . MIT Press Cambridge, MA

    2006

  29. [37]

    Ribatet, M., Cooley, D., and Davison, A. C. (2012). Bayesian inference from composite likelihoods, with an application to spatial extremes. Statistica Sinica , 22(2):813--845

    2012

  30. [38]

    and Held, L

    Rue, H. and Held, L. (2005). Gaussian Markov Random Fields: Theory and Applications . Chapman and Hall/CRC

    2005

  31. [39]

    Salomone, R., Quiroz, M., Kohn, R., Villani, M., and Tran, M.-N. (2020). Spectral subsampling MCMC for stationary time series . In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 8449--8458. PMLR

    2020

  32. [40]

    and Wu, W

    Shao, X. and Wu, W. B. (2007). Asymptotic spectral theory for nonlinear time series. The Annals of Statistics , 35(4):1773--1801

    2007

  33. [41]

    Sid \'e n, P., Lindgren, F., Bolin, D., Eklund, A., and Villani, M. (2021). Spatial 3D Mat \'e rn priors for fast whole-brain fMRI analysis. Bayesian Analysis , 16(4):1251--1278

    2021

  34. [42]

    Simons, F. J. and Olhede, S. C. (2013). Maximum-likelihood estimation of lithospheric flexural rigidity, initial-loading fraction and load correlation, under isotropy. Geophysical Journal International , 193(3):1300--1342

    2013

  35. [43]

    Sowell, F. (1989). A decomposition of block T oeplitz matrices with applications to vector time series. Unpublished manuscript available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fallaw-Sowell

    1989

  36. [44]

    L., Chen, J., and Anitescu, M

    Stein, M. L., Chen, J., and Anitescu, M. (2013). Stochastic approximation of score function for G aussian procceses. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 7:1162--1191

    2013

  37. [45]

    R., Stein, M

    Stroud, J. R., Stein, M. L., and Lysen, S. (2017). Bayesian and maximum likelihood estimation for G aussian processes on an incomplete lattice. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 26(1):108--120

    2017

  38. [46]

    M., Olhede, S

    Sykulski, A. M., Olhede, S. C., Guillaumin, A. P., Lilly, J. M., and Early, J. J. (2019). The debiased whittle likelihood. Biometrika , 106(2):251--266

    2019

  39. [47]

    E., Mulholland, J

    Tolbert, P. E., Mulholland, J. A., Macintosh, D. L., Xu, F., Daniels, D., Devine, O. J., Carlin, B. P., Klein, M., Butler, A. J., Nordenberg, D. F., et al. (2000). Air quality and pediatric emergency room visits for asthma and Atlanta, Georgia . American Journal of Epidemiolog...

    2000

  40. [48]

    Van der Vaart, A. W. (2000). Asymptotic Statistics . Cambridge University Press

    2000

  41. [49]

    Varin, C., Reid, N., and Firth, D. (2011). An overview of composite likelihood methods. Statistica Sinica , 21:5--42

    2011

  42. [50]

    Vecchia, A. V. (1988). Estimation and model identification for continuous spatial processes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) , 50(2):297--312

    1988

  43. [51]

    Villani, M., Quiroz, M., Kohn, R., and Salomone, R. (2024). Spectral subsampling MCMC for stationary multivariate time series with applications to vector ARTFIMA processes. Econometrics and Statistics , 32:98--121

    2024

  44. [52]

    White, H. (1982). Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica , 50(1):1--25

    1982

  45. [53]

    Whittle, P. (1954). On stationary processes in the plane. Biometrika , 41:434--449

    1954

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.