arxiv: 2604.09331 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.SY· eess.SY

Recognition: unknown

Stability Enhanced Gaussian Process Variational Autoencoders

Carl R. Richardson , Jichen Zhang , Ethan King , J\'an Drgo\v{n}a

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.SYeess.SY

keywords Gaussian process variational autoencoderlinear time-invariant systemsstabilitysemi-contracting parametrizationvideo datalatent dynamicsphysical modeling

0 comments

The pith

The SEGP-VAE trains low-dimensional LTI systems from high-dimensional video data by deriving a stability-enhanced Gaussian process prior from LTI definitions and using a complete parametrization of semi-contracting systems.

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

This paper proposes a stability-enhanced Gaussian process variational autoencoder that learns stable linear time-invariant dynamics indirectly from video observations. The mean and covariance of the novel SEGP prior are derived directly from the LTI system equations to blend probabilistic inference with an interpretable physical model. A full parametrization restricts the search to semi-contracting systems, which permits training with standard unconstrained optimizers and avoids numerical failures from non-Hurwitz state matrices. The method is demonstrated on a dataset of spiralling particle videos, where it recovers accurate latent states. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a way to extract reliable physical models from complex visual data without custom optimization constraints.

Core claim

By deriving the mean and covariance functions of the Gaussian process prior from the definition of a linear time-invariant system and introducing a complete, unconstrained parametrization that restricts parameters to the set of semi-contracting systems, the SEGP-VAE can be trained with ordinary optimization algorithms to recover low-dimensional latent dynamics from high-dimensional video while preventing numerical issues caused by non-Hurwitz state matrices.

What carries the argument

The stability-enhanced Gaussian process (SEGP) prior, whose mean and covariance functions are obtained from the LTI system definition, together with the complete parametrization of semi-contracting systems that guarantees stability.

If this is right

The SEGP-VAE can be trained using only unconstrained optimization algorithms.
Numerical instabilities arising from non-Hurwitz state matrices are avoided by construction.
Accurate latent state predictions are obtained on video data of spiralling particles.
The model combines probabilistic modeling with an interpretable physical LTI representation of the latent process.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same parametrization could be applied to other high-dimensional observation modalities such as time-series sensor readings for physical system identification.
Ensuring stability by construction may improve downstream use in control or prediction tasks where unstable learned models cause divergence.
Experiments on data from deliberately unstable or nonlinear systems would test whether the semi-contracting restriction limits the model's ability to fit real dynamics.
The approach may serve as a template for embedding other physical constraints into variational autoencoders to improve interpretability.

Load-bearing premise

The underlying latent process must be accurately described by a low-dimensional linear time-invariant system whose stability properties are fully captured by the semi-contracting parametrization without introducing bias or loss of expressiveness.

What would settle it

Applying the SEGP-VAE to synthetic video data generated from a known LTI system with non-semi-contracting (unstable) dynamics and checking whether the recovered states match the true dynamics or instead produce large errors and instability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09331 by Carl R. Richardson, Ethan King, J\'an Drgo\v{n}a, Jichen Zhang.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Evolution of per-pixel reconstruction error during training. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: KL divergence (unweighted) and L1 norm during training. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Learnt covariance matrices of SEGP prior (left) & SE kernel (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Randomly sampled latent trajectory from test set, plotted against [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Absolute error between the learnt SEGP prior (posterior) mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

A novel stability-enhanced Gaussian process variational autoencoder (SEGP-VAE) is proposed for indirectly training a low-dimensional linear time invariant (LTI) system, using high-dimensional video data. The mean and covariance function of the novel SEGP prior are derived from the definition of an LTI system, enabling the SEGP to capture the indirectly observed latent process using a combined probabilistic and interpretable physical model. The search space of LTI parameters is restricted to the set of semi-contracting systems via a complete and unconstrained parametrisation. As a result, the SEGP-VAE can be trained using unconstrained optimisation algorithms. Furthermore, this parametrisation prevents numerical issues caused by the presence of a non-Hurwitz state matrix. A case study applies SEGP-VAE to a dataset containing videos of spiralling particles. This highlights the benefits of the approach and the application-specific design choices that enabled accurate latent state predictions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The SEGP-VAE builds a GP prior straight from LTI definitions and adds an unconstrained parametrization for semi-contracting dynamics, which is the actual technical move here.

read the letter

The paper's core contribution is deriving the Gaussian process mean and covariance directly from the LTI system matrices so the prior encodes the linear dynamics, then wrapping that in a parametrization that keeps the state matrix semi-contracting without needing constrained optimizers. This lets them train the VAE end-to-end on video while avoiding the usual numerical blow-ups from non-Hurwitz matrices. The spiralling-particles case study shows the latent states can be recovered reasonably well from the high-dimensional observations, which is the practical payoff they highlight. That combination of probabilistic model and hard stability constraint is cleaner than the usual post-hoc fixes or penalty terms I've seen in similar GP-VAE work for dynamical systems. The derivation step itself looks like the new piece that wasn't in the earlier literature they cite. For anyone doing latent LTI identification from video or image sequences in robotics or control, this is worth a look because it removes a common training headache. The main soft spot is whether the semi-contracting parametrization is truly surjective onto the full set of stable LTI systems or if it silently excludes some trajectories near the stability boundary. If it does restrict the family, the variational inference will bias the recovered states even if the optimization runs smoothly. The abstract claims completeness, but I'd want to see the explicit mapping and a check that no expressiveness is lost. The LTI assumption itself is also load-bearing for the method; the particle data fits it, but more complex video dynamics might expose that. Experiments are limited to one dataset, so the robustness claims rest on fairly narrow evidence. This is aimed at people already working at the GP-dynamical-systems intersection who need stable latent models. It is solid enough on the technical construction to deserve a serious referee, even if the experiments need expansion.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to introduce the SEGP-VAE, which derives a Gaussian process prior's mean and covariance from an LTI system definition to model latent dynamics in high-dimensional data such as videos. It uses a complete unconstrained parametrization to restrict to semi-contracting (stable) LTI systems, allowing unconstrained optimization and avoiding numerical issues with non-Hurwitz matrices. This is illustrated with a case study on videos of spiralling particles for accurate latent state predictions.

Significance. Should the derivations be correct and the parametrization complete without loss of expressiveness, this method would enable stable, interpretable LTI model learning within a VAE framework from indirect observations. It addresses a practical issue in training dynamical models by preventing instability during optimization. The integration of physical constraints via GP is noteworthy, though its significance hinges on empirical performance and generalizability beyond the specific particle dataset.

major comments (2)

[Method section on SEGP prior derivation] The derivation of the mean and covariance functions from the LTI definition is central; please specify the exact equations and confirm they lead to a valid GP that exactly represents the LTI trajectories under the stability constraint.
[Parametrization subsection] The claim of a 'complete and unconstrained parametrisation' for semi-contracting systems is load-bearing. Provide the explicit parametrization (e.g., how A is parametrized to ensure semi-contracting property) and a proof or argument that it is surjective onto the full set of such systems to ensure no bias in recovered states.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Consider adding the latent dimension or key results from the case study to make the abstract more informative.
[Experiments] The case study highlights benefits, but including quantitative metrics like prediction error compared to non-stability-enhanced baselines would strengthen the presentation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the paper to provide the requested clarifications and explicit details.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Method section on SEGP prior derivation] The derivation of the mean and covariance functions from the LTI definition is central; please specify the exact equations and confirm they lead to a valid GP that exactly represents the LTI trajectories under the stability constraint.

Authors: We agree that the explicit derivation is essential. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the relevant Method section to state the precise mean and covariance functions obtained directly from the LTI system definition. The mean is the deterministic solution of the homogeneous state equation, and the covariance is formed by propagating the process-noise intensity through the state-transition matrix. By construction the resulting kernel is positive semi-definite, yielding a valid GP. Under the semi-contracting constraint the prior exactly reproduces the trajectories of the underlying stable LTI system, because every sample path satisfies the linear dynamics and the stability condition is enforced on the parametrization. revision: yes
Referee: [Parametrization subsection] The claim of a 'complete and unconstrained parametrisation' for semi-contracting systems is load-bearing. Provide the explicit parametrization (e.g., how A is parametrized to ensure semi-contracting property) and a proof or argument that it is surjective onto the full set of such systems to ensure no bias in recovered states.

Authors: We appreciate the referee drawing attention to this foundational claim. The revised Parametrization subsection now gives the explicit, unconstrained parametrization of the state matrix A (and the remaining LTI parameters) that maps the free variables onto the set of all semi-contracting matrices. We also supply a concise argument establishing surjectivity: every semi-contracting matrix admits a representation in the chosen form, so the parametrization introduces no artificial restrictions. Consequently the optimization can reach any stable LTI system consistent with the data, eliminating bias in the recovered latent trajectories. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: GP prior derived from external LTI axioms; parametrization is explicit constraint, not fitted prediction

full rationale

The paper states that mean/covariance functions are derived from the LTI system definition (an external mathematical object) and that the semi-contracting restriction is imposed via a complete, unconstrained reparametrization of the parameter space. This is a hard constraint on the domain, not a statistical fit to target data followed by a renamed prediction. No load-bearing self-citation, no self-definitional loop, and no ansatz smuggled via prior work are present in the provided derivation chain. The variational training therefore operates inside an independently specified model class rather than recovering its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the observed video data is generated by a low-dimensional LTI process whose stability can be enforced via the proposed parametrization; no new entities are postulated beyond the SEGP construction itself.

free parameters (1)

LTI system parameters (state matrix, input matrix, etc.)
These are the target quantities to be learned from the video data via the VAE.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The latent dynamics obey a low-dimensional linear time-invariant system
Invoked to derive the mean and covariance functions of the SEGP prior from the LTI definition.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5466 in / 1405 out tokens · 61879 ms · 2026-05-10T17:17:13.862094+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Tutorial on

C. Doersch, “Tutorial on variational autoencoders,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05908, 2016

work page arXiv 2016
[2]

Draw: A recurrent neural network for image generation,

K. Gregor, I. Danihelka, A. Graves, D. Rezende, and D. Wierstra, “Draw: A recurrent neural network for image generation,” inInterna- tional conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2015, pp. 1462–1471

2015
[3]

Learning structured output represen- tation using deep conditional generative models,

K. Sohn, H. Lee, and X. Yan, “Learning structured output represen- tation using deep conditional generative models,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 28, 2015

2015
[4]

Visual anomaly detection in video by variational autoencoder,

F. Waseem, R. Martinez, and C. Wu, “Visual anomaly detection in video by variational autoencoder,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03872, 2022. 0.5 1.0 1.5 True Prior 95% CI 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 True Prior 95% CI 0 1 2 3 Time (t) 0.5 1.0 1.5 True Prediction 95% CI 0 1 2 3 Time (t) 0 2 4 6 True Prediction 95% CI Fig. 6. Randomly sampled latent trajectory from tes...

work page arXiv 2022
[5]

Clockwork variational autoen- coders,

V . Saxena, J. Ba, and D. Hafner, “Clockwork variational autoen- coders,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 29 246–29 257, 2021

2021
[6]

Spatio-temporal categorization for first-person-view videos using a convolutional variational autoencoder and gaussian processes,

M. Nagano, T. Nakamura, T. Nagai, D. Mochihashi, and I. Kobayashi, “Spatio-temporal categorization for first-person-view videos using a convolutional variational autoencoder and gaussian processes,”Fron- tiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 9, p. 903450, 2022

2022
[7]

Variational autoencoder for end-to-end control of autonomous driving with novelty detection and training de-biasing,

A. Amini, W. Schwarting, G. Rosman, B. Araki, S. Karaman, and D. Rus, “Variational autoencoder for end-to-end control of autonomous driving with novelty detection and training de-biasing,” in2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 568–575

2018
[8]

Applied Koopmanism,

M. Budiši ´c, R. Mohr, and I. Mezi ´c, “Applied Koopmanism,”Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 22, no. 4, 2012

2012
[9]

On Gaussian process based Koopman operators,

Y . Lian and C. N. Jones, “On Gaussian process based Koopman operators,”IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 449–455, 2020

2020
[10]

Learning koopman representations with controlla- bility guarantees,

K. Miao, H. Wang, X. Ding, K. Gatsis, A. Krause, and A. Pa- pachristodoulou, “Learning koopman representations with controlla- bility guarantees,” inThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

2026
[11]

Physics-enhanced Gaussian pro- cess variational autoencoder,

T. Beckers, Q. Wu, and G. J. Pappas, “Physics-enhanced Gaussian pro- cess variational autoencoder,” inLearning for Dynamics and Control Conference. PMLR, 2023, pp. 521–533

2023
[12]

Machine-learning-enabled on-the-fly analysis of RHEED patterns during thin film deposition by molecular beam epitaxy,

T. C. Kaspar, S. Akers, H. W. Sprueill, A. H. Ter-Petrosyan, J. A. Bilbrey, D. Hopkins, A. Harilal, J. Christudasjustus, P. Gemperline, and R. B. Comes, “Machine-learning-enabled on-the-fly analysis of RHEED patterns during thin film deposition by molecular beam epitaxy,”Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A, vol. 43, no. 3, 2025

2025
[13]

A disentangled recognition and nonlinear dynamics model for unsupervised learning,

M. Fraccaro, S. Kamronn, U. Paquet, and O. Winther, “A disentangled recognition and nonlinear dynamics model for unsupervised learning,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

2017
[14]

Variational message passing with structured inference networks,

W. Lin, N. Hubacher, and M. Khan, “Variational message passing with structured inference networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05589, 2018

work page arXiv 2018
[15]

Comparing interpretable inference models for videos of physical motion,

M. Pearce, S. Chiappa, and U. Paquet, “Comparing interpretable inference models for videos of physical motion,” in1st symposium on advances in approximate bayesian inference, 2018

2018
[16]

Gaussian process prior variational autoencoders,

F. P. Casale, A. Dalca, L. Saglietti, J. Listgarten, and N. Fusi, “Gaussian process prior variational autoencoders,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 31, 2018

2018
[17]

tvGP-V AE: Tensor-variate Gaussian process prior variational autoencoder,

A. Campbell and P. Liò, “tvGP-V AE: Tensor-variate Gaussian process prior variational autoencoder,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04788, 2020

work page arXiv 2006
[18]

The Gaussian process prior V AE for interpretable latent dynamics from pixels,

M. Pearce, “The Gaussian process prior V AE for interpretable latent dynamics from pixels,” inSymposium on advances in approximate bayesian inference. PMLR, 2020, pp. 1–12

2020
[19]

Strengthened Circle and Popov Criteria for the stability analysis of feedback systems with ReLU neural networks,

C. R. Richardson, M. C. Turner, and S. R. Gunn, “Strengthened Circle and Popov Criteria for the stability analysis of feedback systems with ReLU neural networks,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, 2023

2023
[20]

Strengthened stability analysis of discrete-time Lurie systems involv- ing ReLU neural networks,

C. R. Richardson, M. C. Turner, S. R. Gunn, and R. Drummond, “Strengthened stability analysis of discrete-time Lurie systems involv- ing ReLU neural networks,” inLearning for Decision and Control (L4DC). L4DC, 2024

2024
[21]

Analysis of lurie systems with magnitude nonlinearities and connections to neural network stability analysis,

C. R. Richardson, M. C. Turner, and S. R. Gunn, “Analysis of lurie systems with magnitude nonlinearities and connections to neural network stability analysis,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2026

2026
[22]

Geometric Deep Learning: Grids, Groups, Graphs, Geodesics, and Gauges

M. M. Bronstein, J. Bruna, T. Cohen, and P. Veli ˇckovi´c, “Geometric deep learning: grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.13478, 2021

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021
[23]

Lurie networks with robust convergent dynamics,

C. R. Richardson, M. C. Turner, and S. R. Gunn, “Lurie networks with robust convergent dynamics,”Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2025

2025
[24]

Magnetic control of tokamak plasmas through deep reinforcement learning,

J. Degrave, F. Felici, J. Buchli, M. Neunert, B. Tracey, F. Carpanese, T. Ewalds, R. Hafner, A. Abdolmaleki, D. de Las Casaset al., “Magnetic control of tokamak plasmas through deep reinforcement learning,”Nature, vol. 602, no. 7897, pp. 414–419, 2022

2022
[25]

Physics-informed machine- learning model of temperature evolution under solid phase processes,

E. King, Y . Li, S. Hu, and E. Machorro, “Physics-informed machine- learning model of temperature evolution under solid phase processes,” Computational Mechanics, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 125–136, 2023

2023
[26]

Safe physics- informed machine learning for dynamics and control,

J. Drgo ˇna, T. X. Nghiem, T. Beckers, M. Fazlyab, E. Mallada, C. Jones, D. Vrabie, S. L. Brunton, and R. Findeisen, “Safe physics- informed machine learning for dynamics and control,” in2025 Amer- ican Control Conference (ACC), 2025, pp. 591–606

2025
[27]

Nonlinear systems,

H. K. Khalil, “Nonlinear systems,”Patience Hall, vol. 115, 2002

2002
[28]

Achiev- ing stable dynamics in neural circuits,

L. Kozachkov, M. Lundqvist, J.-J. Slotine, and E. K. Miller, “Achiev- ing stable dynamics in neural circuits,”PLoS computational biology, vol. 16, no. 8, p. e1007659, 2020

2020
[29]

Neural contractive dynamical systems,

H. B. Mohammadi, S. Hauberg, G. Arvanitidis, N. Figueroa, G. Neu- mann, and L. Rozo, “Neural contractive dynamical systems,” inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

2024
[30]

Dissipative deep neural dynamical systems,

J. Drgo ˇna, A. Tuor, S. Vasisht, and D. Vrabie, “Dissipative deep neural dynamical systems,”IEEE Open Journal of Control Systems, vol. 1, pp. 100–112, 2022

2022
[31]

On contraction analysis for non- linear systems,

W. Lohmiller and J.-J. E. Slotine, “On contraction analysis for non- linear systems,”Automatica, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 683–696, 1998

1998
[32]

Perspectives on contractivity in control, optimization, and learning,

A. Davydov and F. Bullo, “Perspectives on contractivity in control, optimization, and learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11707, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[33]

Learn- ing neural contracting dynamics: Extended linearization and global guarantees,

S. Jaffe, A. Davydov, D. Lapsekili, A. Singh, and F. Bullo, “Learn- ing neural contracting dynamics: Extended linearization and global guarantees,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08090, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[34]

C. K. Williams and C. E. Rasmussen,Gaussian processes for machine learning. MIT press Cambridge, MA, 2006, vol. 2, no. 3

2006
[35]

Kernels for vector- valued functions: A review,

M. A. Alvarez, L. Rosasco, N. D. Lawrenceet al., “Kernels for vector- valued functions: A review,”Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 195–266, 2012

2012
[36]

Linear latent force models using Gaussian processes,

M. A. Alvarez, D. Luengo, and N. D. Lawrence, “Linear latent force models using Gaussian processes,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 2693–2705, 2013

2013
[37]

Hespanha,Linear systems theory

J. Hespanha,Linear systems theory. Princeton university press, 2018

2018
[38]

The matrix cookbook,

K. B. Petersen, M. S. Pedersenet al., “The matrix cookbook,” Technical University of Denmark, vol. 7, no. 15, p. 510, 2008

2008
[39]

Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[40]

End-to-end training of deep visuomotor policies,

S. Levine, C. Finn, T. Darrell, and P. Abbeel, “End-to-end training of deep visuomotor policies,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 17, no. 39, pp. 1–40, 2016

2016