Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Gaussian Process Latent Factor Regression for Low-Data, High-Dimensional Output Problems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A joint Gaussian-process model learns compressed latents that prioritize what inputs can predict in high-dimensional, low-data regression.

desk verdict Clean dual of LMC that actually helps when PCA wastes rank on structured nuisance; the exoplanet emulator is the real application payoff, with tempering/MAP as the main practical soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.06576 v2 pith:YE7ZZ622 submitted 2026-06-04 cs.LG astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMstat.ML

Edward T. Stevenson , Eric T. Wolf , Mei Ting Mak , N. J. Mayne , Miles Cranmer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGastro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMstat.ML
keywords Gaussianprocessmulti-outputregressionlatentfactormodelhigh-dimensionaloutputsemulatorexoplanetclimatePCA-GPlow-dataregime
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

Scientific emulation often needs to map a few input examples to huge structured outputs such as spatial climate fields. Standard multi-output GPs struggle with output dimension, while the usual fix—PCA then GP—chooses a basis that maximizes reconstruction variance rather than predictability from the inputs. This paper introduces Gaussian process latent factor regression (GPLFR): each output is a linear-Gaussian decoding of a low-dimensional latent state drawn from a GP prior over the inputs; the decoder weights are marginalized analytically so compression and regression share one objective. The resulting latents are biased toward structure that is coherent under the chosen kernel. On a synthetic task with structured nuisance noise the method matches PCA-GP accuracy with roughly four times fewer points, and it produces the first spatially resolved multi-GCM emulator for rocky-exoplanet climates.

What carries the argument

Gaussian process latent factor regression (GPLFR): the collapsed likelihood obtained by placing matrix-normal priors on the decoder weights and integrating them out, leaving a low-rank covariance over outputs that is jointly optimized with the GP kernel hyperparameters on the latents.

What would settle it

On a held-out suite of rocky-exoplanet GCM runs whose residual fields contain known structured, input-independent components, compare signal-capture fractions and RMSE of GPLFR against PCA-GP at matched latent rank; if GPLFR no longer recovers more predictable energy or loses its sample-efficiency edge, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

GPLFR couples compression and prediction by representing high-dimensional outputs as linear-Gaussian decodings of low-dimensional latents under a GP prior, then analytically collapsing the decoder. The joint objective therefore selects latent directions that are both reconstructive and predictable from the inputs, outperforming reconstruction-first pipelines when residual output noise is structured.

Load-bearing premise

That setting residual output correlations to the identity and tempering the likelihood with a hand-chosen inverse temperature is enough to stop misspecified correlations from overwhelming the GP prior and warping the learned latents.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: GPLFR couples compression and prediction by representing high-dimensional outputs as linear-Gaussian decodings of low-dimensional latents under a GP prior, then analytically collapsing the decoder. The joint objective therefore selects latent directions that are both reconstructive and predictable from the inputs, outperforming reconstruction-first pipelines when residual output noise is structure

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

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 introduces Gaussian process latent factor regression (GPLFR): each high-dimensional output is a linear-Gaussian decoding of low-dimensional latents drawn from GP priors over the inputs, with decoder weights analytically marginalized to yield a collapsed likelihood that jointly learns compression and regression. Framing GPLFR and the linear model of coregionalization as dual marginalizations of the same latent-factor model (Section 2, eqs. 3–4), the authors argue that tying latents to a GP prior biases the representation toward Cov(E[y|x]) rather than total Cov(y), unlike PCA-GP. They support this with a synthetic benchmark under structured nuisance noise (Figs. 2–4), a PCA-friendly biomedical optics task (PyXOpto), and a multi-GCM rocky-exoplanet climate emulator with Dy ≈ 3×10^4, missing fields, and discrete GCM labels, where GPLFR reports the best RMSE and energy scores among the tested baselines.

Significance. If the empirical pattern holds, GPLFR is a practically useful end-to-end alternative to compress-then-predict pipelines for low-N, high-Dy scientific regression, especially when residual output structure is correlated and input-independent. The LMC dualization is clean and clarifying; the synthetic design (known signal vs. nuisance capture, App. D.1.3) is a strong diagnostic; and the exoplanet climate emulator is a genuine application contribution with multi-metric evaluation (RMSE, energy score, ACC, SSR) and released code. Strengths include explicit handling of missing fields, ICM kernels over GCM identity, and honest discussion of optimization and misspecification (Section 5, App. B.4). These make the work of clear interest to multi-output GP and scientific emulation audiences.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1 / App. B.4] Section 3.1 and Appendix B.4: defaulting B=I and tempering the collapsed likelihood with a hand-chosen inverse-temperature β∈(0,1] is presented as necessary misspecification mitigation, yet β (and latent noise λ) are free hyperparameters selected by validation with limited reported sensitivity. Because the central claim is that the joint objective prioritizes predictable structure without overstating per-dimension information, the paper should include a short sensitivity study (e.g., RMSE/energy score vs. β on the synthetic and climate tasks) and clearer practitioner guidance on when tempering is required versus when B=I is adequate.
  2. [§5 / App. B.5 / Tables 2, D.11] Section 5 and Appendix B.5: all reported predictions and probabilistic scores (energy score, SSR in Tables 2, D.8, D.11) use a MAP point estimate of latents and globals. In the low-N, high-Dy regime this may be reasonable, but the manuscript’s uncertainty-calibration claims rest on that approximation. Either (i) add a limited partially Bayesian check (e.g., HMC over globals with latents fixed at MAP, as the authors themselves suggest) on one task, or (ii) clearly qualify that energy scores/SSR reflect MAP predictive ensembles only, not full posterior uncertainty.
  3. [§4.1.3 / App. D.1.4 / Fig. 4] Section 4.1.3 / App. D.1.4: in the noiseless limit (σ²_nuis=0), randomly initialized GPLFR underperforms PCA-GP, and only PCA-initialized GPLFR recovers a slight edge. This is acknowledged but under-emphasized relative to the “4× sample efficiency” headline from the nuisance-heavy regime. The main text should state more explicitly the regime boundary (structured nuisance vs. pure signal) under which GPLFR is expected to help, so readers do not over-generalize the sample-efficiency claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1] Figure 1 lists B as a free node while the main experiments set B=I; a short caption note would avoid confusion with the ICM input coregionalization Bin used later.
  2. [§2] Notation for latent dimensionality switches between Dz and Dsig; a single convention in Section 2 would help.
  3. [Table 1] Table 1 reports large absolute gains on absorbed shortwave radiation (18.9 vs 28.8 W m⁻²); a brief note on whether spectral truncation or mean-function residuals drive this would aid interpretation.
  4. [App. D.3.7] Appendix D.3.7 training times are useful; adding approximate wall-clock for hyperparameter search (or number of CV trials) would complete the cost picture relative to PCA-GP.
  5. [§1 / App. A] The related-work discussion of LV-MOGPs and GPRNs is appropriate; a one-sentence contrast with supervised PCA / PLS (already in App. A) in the main introduction would help non-GP readers place the contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Empirical methods paper with no load-bearing circular derivation; GPLFR is a dual marginalization of a standard linear-Gaussian factor model, and claims rest on held-out benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central construction (Section 2.2, eqs. 3–4) is the dual of the linear model of coregionalization: the same joint p(Y,Z,W) yields LMC when Z is marginalized and GPLFR's collapsed likelihood when W is marginalized under a matrix-normal prior. That dualization is algebraic and does not define the claimed performance gains. The claimed advantage—that the GP prior over latents biases the learned subspace toward Cov(E[y|x]) rather than total Cov(y)—is then tested on synthetic data with known signal/nuisance decomposition (Figs. 2–4, App. D.1.3), on PyXOpto reflectance curves, and on multi-GCM exoplanet climate fields, all with held-out evaluation. Self-citations are almost entirely dataset/GCM sources and a related ThousandWorlds benchmark still in review; none is used as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification of the method. The only soft spot is the hand-chosen inverse-temperature β and B=I default (Section 3.1, App. B.4), which the authors themselves flag as misspecification mitigation; that is a modeling assumption, not a circular reduction of a prediction to its fit. Score 1 reflects ordinary self-citation of data sources with no tautological claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard GP and linear-Gaussian factor-model math, domain choices for scientific emulation (low-rank predictable structure, simple B), and several free knobs (β, λ, Dz, kernel family/grouping) selected by validation. No new physical entities; the invented object is the GPLFR model class itself.

free parameters (5)
  • likelihood inverse-temperature β
    Hand-chosen tempering of the collapsed likelihood to mitigate B=I misspecification; selected from small grids (e.g. 0.1 or 0.3) per experiment and load-bearing for stable joint optimization.
  • latent GP noise λ
    Nugget added to each latent kernel covariance to relax exact GP explanation of latents; tuned (e.g. 1e-5 or 0.1) and affects the optimization landscape.
  • latent dimensionality Dz
    Chosen by validation/CV (e.g. 6 on synthetic/optics, 150 on climate); controls capacity of the shared representation.
  • kernel lengthscales, amplitudes, and ICM coregionalization Bin
    MAP/ML-fitted GP hyperparameters and task/GCM correlation structure; free parameters of the regression model, not fixed by theory.
  • observation noise σ and decoder prior scale structure
    Noise and B parameterization (default identity; climate uses input-side ICM scales) are estimated or fixed by design and enter the collapsed likelihood.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Outputs admit an accurate low-rank linear-Gaussian factor representation with residual noise approximately handled by isotropic σ² and optional tempering.
    Stated throughout Sections 2–3 and Appendix B; required for collapsed decoder and B=I default.
  • domain assumption Latent factors are independent zero-mean GPs of the inputs (per-latent kernels, optional ICM over discrete tasks/GCMs).
    Encoder prior in Appendix B.2; defines how predictability is biased into the representation.
  • standard math Matrix-normal prior on decoder weights and analytic marginalization yield the collapsed likelihood used for joint learning.
    Section 2.2 and Appendix B.3; standard Gaussian conjugacy / Woodbury identities.
  • ad hoc to paper MAP point estimate of latents and globals is an adequate approximation to the posterior for prediction in the reported regimes.
    Section 5 and Appendix B.4–B.5; full Bayesian inference deferred; climate and synthetic results use MAP.
  • domain assumption Missing climate fields are missing at random given inputs; partially missing fields can be treated as fully unobserved.
    Appendix D.3.3 missing-data handling for multi-GCM library.
invented entities (1)
  • Gaussian process latent factor regression (GPLFR)
    purpose: Name and package the joint latent-GP + collapsed linear decoder model for low-N, high-Dy regression.
    The paper’s primary methodological object; dual to LMC but not previously deployed as this end-to-end high-Dy emulator recipe.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gaussian Process Latent Factor Regression for Low-Data, High-Dimensional Output Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YE7ZZ622

@misc{pith2026260606576,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gaussian Process Latent Factor Regression for Low-Data, High-Dimensional Output Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YE7ZZ622}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.06576}
}
read the original abstract

In the sciences, regression tasks often require predicting high-dimensional outputs from few training examples. Multi-output Gaussian processes excel in low-data regimes but typically struggle with high-dimensional outputs. Compress-then-predict pipelines such as PCA-GP (principal component analysis plus Gaussian process regression) handle high dimensionality, but rely on bases optimized for reconstruction rather than prediction. To address this gap, we propose a model that represents each output as a linear-Gaussian decoding of a low-dimensional latent state drawn from a Gaussian process prior. By analytically marginalizing the decoder weights, we couple compression and prediction in a single objective that scales to high-dimensional outputs. We refer to this model as Gaussian process latent factor regression (GPLFR). We demonstrate GPLFR by building the first spatially resolved emulator of global climate models for rocky exoplanets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.06576 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Probabilistic graphical model of GPLFR. Shaded nodes are observed. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Synthetic benchmark: Learning curves for GPLFR and PCA-GP, each with six latent dimensions / principal components (matching the true signal rank). Bold lines show medians over five dataset seeds; faint lines show individual seeds. Outputs live on a 2D grid with Dy = HW locations. The signal component consists of zsig(x) ∈ R Dsig , de￾coded through localized squared-exponential basis functions (columns of Wsig) with … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Synthetic benchmark: Effect of latent dimension￾ality / number of principal components on signal prediction with N = 800 examples. The true signal rank Dsig = 6. Bold lines show medians over five dataset seeds; faint lines show individual seeds. (σ 2 sig, σ2 nuis, σ2 ϵ ) = (1, 1, 10−4 ), making a hard-to-predict dataset. Sample efficiency ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PyXOpto emulation: Learning curves for GPLFR and baselines. GPLFR, PCA-ICM and PCA-MLP use six latent dimensions / principal components. Bold lines show medians over five dataset seeds; faint lines show individual seeds. 4.2.2 Results Sample efficiency ( [PITH_FULL_IM…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PyXOpto emulation: Effect of latent dimension￾ality / number of principal components with N = 200 examples. Bold lines show medians over five dataset seeds; faint lines show individual seeds. rameterizations that capture non-dynamical processes (e.g., radiation, microp…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alvarez, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Neil D

    Mauricio A. Alvarez, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Neil D. Lawrence. Kernels for Vector-Valued Functions : A Review , April 2012

    2012

  2. [2]

    Prediction by Supervised Principal Components

    Eric Bair, Trevor Hastie, Debashis Paul, and Robert Tibshirani. Prediction by Supervised Principal Components . Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101 0 (473): 0 119--137, March 2006. ISSN 0162-1459. doi:10.1198/016214505000000628

    work page doi:10.1198/016214505000000628 2006

  3. [3]

    A General Framework for Updating Belief Distributions

    Pier Giovanni Bissiri, Chris Holmes, and Stephen Walker. A General Framework for Updating Belief Distributions . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 78 0 (5): 0 1103--1130, November 2016. ISSN 1369-7412, 1467-9868. doi:10.1111/rssb.12158

    work page doi:10.1111/rssb.12158 2016

  4. [4]

    Bruinsma, Eric Perim, Will Tebbutt, J

    Wessel P. Bruinsma, Eric Perim, Will Tebbutt, J. Scott Hosking, Arno Solin, and Richard E. Turner. Scalable Exact Inference in Multi-Output Gaussian Processes , July 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    MCDataset : A public reference dataset of Monte Carlo simulated quantities for multilayered and voxelated tissues computed by massively parallel PyXOpto Python package

    Miran B \"u rmen, Franjo Pernu s , and Peter Nagli c . MCDataset : A public reference dataset of Monte Carlo simulated quantities for multilayered and voxelated tissues computed by massively parallel PyXOpto Python package. Journal of Biomedical Optics, 27 0 (8): 0 083012, April 2022. ISSN 1083-3668, 1560-2281. doi:10.1117/1.JBO.27.8.083012

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jbo.27.8.083012 2022

  6. [6]

    Manifold Gaussian Processes for Regression , April 2016

    Roberto Calandra, Jan Peters, Carl Edward Rasmussen, and Marc Peter Deisenroth. Manifold Gaussian Processes for Regression , April 2016

    2016

  7. [7]

    Efficient Modeling of Latent Information in Supervised Learning using Gaussian Processes

    Zhenwen Dai, Mauricio \'A lvarez, and Neil Lawrence. Efficient Modeling of Latent Information in Supervised Learning using Gaussian Processes . Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    and Kopparapu, Ravi K

    Tobi Hammond, Thaddeus D. Komacek, Ravi K. Kopparapu, Thomas J. Fauchez, Avi M. Mandell, Eric T. Wolf, Vincent Kofman, Stephen R. Kane, Ted M. Johnson, Anmol Desai, Giada Arney, and Jaime S. Crouse. The Climates and Thermal Emission Spectra of Prime Nearby Temperate Rocky Exoplanet Targets . The Astrophysical Journal, 984 0 (2): 0 181, May 2025. ISSN 0004...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc73b 2025

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Wolf, Thomas J

    Jacob Haqq-Misra , Eric T. Wolf, Thomas J. Fauchez, Aomawa L. Shields, and Ravi K. Kopparapu. The Sparse Atmospheric Model Sampling Analysis ( SAMOSA ) Intercomparison : Motivations and Protocol Version 1.0: A CUISINES Model Intercomparison Project . The Planetary Science Jour...

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Computer Model Calibration Using High-Dimensional Output

    Dave Higdon, James Gattiker, Brian Williams, and Maria Rightley. Computer Model Calibration Using High-Dimensional Output . Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103 0 (482): 0 570--583, June 2008. ISSN 0162-1459. doi:10.1198/016214507000000888

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    Holden, Neil R

    Philip B. Holden, Neil R. Edwards, Paul H. Garthwaite, and Richard D. Wilkinson. Emulation and interpretation of high-dimensional climate model outputs. Journal of Applied Statistics, 42 0 (9): 0 2038--2055, September 2015. ISSN 0266-4763. doi:10.1080/02664763.2015.1016412

    doi

  4. [12]

    Fast Emulation , Modular Calibration , and Active Learning for Simulators with Functional Response , October 2025

    Grant Hutchings, Derek Bingham, Kellin Rumsey, and Earl Lawrence. Fast Emulation , Modular Calibration , and Active Learning for Simulators with Functional Response , October 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Reduced-rank regression for the multivariate linear model

    Alan Julian Izenman. Reduced-rank regression for the multivariate linear model. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 5 0 (2): 0 248--264, June 1975. ISSN 0047-259X. doi:10.1016/0047-259X(75)90042-1

    1975 doi

  6. [14]

    \'A lvarez

    Xiaoyu Jiang, Sokratia Georgaka, Magnus Rattray, and Mauricio A. \'A lvarez. Scalable Multi-Output Gaussian Processes with Stochastic Variational Inference , June 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Komacek and Dorian S

    Thaddeus D. Komacek and Dorian S. Abbot. The atmospheric circulation and climate of terrestrial planets orbiting Sun-like and M-dwarf stars over a broad range of planetary parameters. The Astrophysical Journal, 871 0 (2): 0 245, February 2019. ISSN 0004-637X, 1538-4357. doi:10...

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Wolf, Jacob Haqq-Misra , Jun Yang, James F

    Ravi kumar Kopparapu, Eric T. Wolf, Jacob Haqq-Misra , Jun Yang, James F. Kasting, Victoria Meadows, Ryan Terrien, and Suvrath Mahadevan. THE INNER EDGE OF THE HABITABLE ZONE FOR SYNCHRONOUSLY ROTATING PLANETS AROUND LOW-MASS STARS USING GENERAL CIRCULATION MODELS . The Astrop...

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Wolf, Giada Arney, Natasha E

    Ravi kumar Kopparapu, Eric T. Wolf, Giada Arney, Natasha E. Batalha, Jacob Haqq-Misra , Simon L. Grimm, and Kevin Heng. Habitable Moist Atmospheres on Terrestrial Planets near the Inner Edge of the Habitable Zone around M Dwarfs . The Astrophysical Journal, 845 0 (1): 0 5, Aug...

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Probabilistic Non-linear Principal Component Analysis with Gaussian Process Latent Variable Models

    Neil Lawrence. Probabilistic Non-linear Principal Component Analysis with Gaussian Process Latent Variable Models . Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6 0 (60): 0 1783--1816, 2005. ISSN 1533-7928

    2005

  11. [19]

    Kirby, and Shandian Zhe

    Shibo Li, Wei Xing, Robert M. Kirby, and Shandian Zhe. Scalable Gaussian Process Regression Networks . In Twenty- Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 3, pages 2456--2462, July 2020. doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/340

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Climate Transition to Temperate Nightside at High Atmosphere Mass

    Evelyn Macdonald, Kristen Menou, Christopher Lee, and Adiv Paradise. Climate Transition to Temperate Nightside at High Atmosphere Mass . The Astrophysical Journal, 981 0 (1): 0 3, February 2025. ISSN 0004-637X. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb0cb

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    3D simulations of TRAPPIST-1e with varying CO2 , CH4 and haze profiles

    Mei Ting Mak, Denis Sergeev, Nathan Mayne, Nahum Banks, Jake Eager-Nash , James Manners, Giada Arney, Eric Hebrard, and Krisztian Kohary. 3D simulations of TRAPPIST-1e with varying CO2 , CH4 and haze profiles. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529 0 (4): 0 397...

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Climate Diversity in the Solar-Like Habitable Zone due to Varying Background Gas Pressure

    Adiv Paradise, Bo Lin Fan, Kristen Menou, and Christopher Lee. Climate Diversity in the Solar-Like Habitable Zone due to Varying Background Gas Pressure . Icarus, 358: 0 114301, April 2021. ISSN 00191035. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114301

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    ExoPlaSim : Extending the Planet Simulator for Exoplanets

    Adiv Paradise, Evelyn Macdonald, Kristen Menou, Christopher Lee, and Bo Lin Fan. ExoPlaSim : Extending the Planet Simulator for Exoplanets . Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511 0 (3): 0 3272--3303, February 2022 a . ISSN 0035-8711, 1365-2966. doi:10.1093/mnr...

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Fundamental challenges to remote sensing of exo-earths

    Adiv Paradise, Kristen Menou, Christopher Lee, and Bo Lin Fan. Fundamental challenges to remote sensing of exo-earths. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512 0 (3): 0 3616--3626, May 2022 b . ISSN 0035-8711. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac724

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Efficient Emulators for Multivariate Deterministic Functions

    Jonathan Rougier. Efficient Emulators for Multivariate Deterministic Functions . Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 17 0 (4): 0 827--843, December 2008. ISSN 1061-8600. doi:10.1198/106186008X384032

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    Sergeev, Thomas J

    Denis E. Sergeev, Thomas J. Fauchez, Martin Turbet, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman , Fran c ois Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra , Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, and Nathan J. Mayne. The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable...

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Edward T. W. Stevenson, Mei Ting Mak, Eric T. Wolf, Denis E. Sergeev, Tobi Hammond, N. J. Mayne, and Miles Cranmer. ThousandWorlds : A benchmark for climate emulation of potentially habitable exoplanets. Submitted to the Fortieth Annual Conference on Neural Information Process...

    2026

  20. [28]

    Wolf, Ravi kumar Kopparapu, Geronimo L

    Gabrielle Suissa, Eric T. Wolf, Ravi kumar Kopparapu, Geronimo L. Villanueva, Thomas Fauchez, Avi M. Mandell, Giada Arney, Emily A. Gilbert, Joshua E. Schlieder, Thomas Barclay, Elisa V. Quintana, Eric Lopez, Joseph E. Rodriguez, and Andrew Vanderburg. The First Habitable-zone...

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Yee Whye Teh, Matthias Seeger, and Michael I. Jordan. Semiparametric latent factor models. In International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 333--340. PMLR, January 2005

    2005

  22. [30]

    Knowles, and Zoubin Ghahramani

    Andrew Gordon Wilson, David A. Knowles, and Zoubin Ghahramani. Gaussian Process Regression Networks , October 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    PLS-regression : A basic tool of chemometrics

    Svante Wold, Michael Sj \"o str \"o m, and Lennart Eriksson. PLS-regression : A basic tool of chemometrics. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 58 0 (2): 0 109--130, October 2001. ISSN 0169-7439. doi:10.1016/S0169-7439(01)00155-1

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    E. T. Wolf, R. K. Kopparapu, and J. Haqq-Misra . Simulated Phase-dependent Spectra of Terrestrial Aquaplanets in M Dwarf Systems . The Astrophysical Journal, 877 0 (1): 0 35, May 2019. ISSN 0004-637X. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab184a

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Eric T. Wolf. Assessing the Habitability of the TRAPPIST-1 System Using a 3D Climate Model . The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 839 0 (1): 0 L1, April 2017. ISSN 2041-8205. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa693a

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Wolf, Edward W

    Eric T. Wolf, Edward W. Schwieterman, Jacob Haqq-Misra , Thomas J. Fauchez, Sandra T. Bastelberger, Michaela Leung, Sarah Peacock, Geronimo L. Villanueva, and Ravi K. Kopparapu. Chemistry, Climate , and Transmission Spectra of TRAPPIST-1 e Explored with a Multimodel Sparse Sam...

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    [title in preparation]

    Hannah Woodward et al. [title in preparation]. In preparation

  28. [36]

    Shandian Zhe, Wei Xing, and Robert M. Kirby. Scalable High-Order Gaussian Process Regression . In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 2611--2620. PMLR, April 2019

    2019

Pith tools

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