Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Hierarchical Bayesian Calibration with Bayesian Committee Machine

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that splitting a hierarchical Kennedy–O'Hagan calibration's simulation data across a Bayesian committee of Gaussian processes cuts runtime by over an order of magnitude while preserving the inferred distribution of the…

desk verdict Useful engineering combination with real scaling gains, but the experimental likelihood is factorized incorrectly and the accelerator table contradicts the text—send back for major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12603 v1 pith:GLODGQF4 submitted 2026-08-12 stat.CO physics.data-an

Sebastian Heinekamp , David M. Higdon , Andreas Adelmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.COphysics.data-an MSC 62F1560G15
keywords BayesiancalibrationhierarchicalCommitteeMachineGaussianprocessemulatorKennedy–O'HaganmodelNo-U-TurnSampleruncertaintyquantificationparticleaccelerator
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 sets out to make Kennedy–O'Hagan-style Bayesian calibration practical in the regime that breaks it: many experiments whose calibration parameters—such as an accelerator's beam-injection amplitude—drift between runs, plus a simulation dataset numbering in the thousands, where every Gaussian-process likelihood evaluation costs $O(n^3)$. It extends the standard model with a hierarchical prior $\theta_i \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu_\theta, \sigma_\theta)$ that pools information across experiments, and it accelerates the likelihood with the Bayesian Committee Machine, which splits the simulation data into subsets, fits a Gaussian process to each, and multiplies the per-subset likelihoods into one corrected product. On the Park function, the cantilever beam, and a simulated electron-gun calibration, the framework recovers the true distribution of the per-experiment parameters while cutting runtime by over an order of magnitude—a 15.86-fold speed-up at 150 simulation points with eight committee members, with the runtime scaling falling from $O(n^{2.31})$ to $O(n^{1.24})$. The paper concludes that the BCM preserves inferential accuracy once each committee member holds enough points, making MCMC calibration with large simulation sets feasible. If the claim holds, calibration that otherwise takes hours moves inside the experimental operator's window.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Bayesian Committee Machine product formula (Equation 2.13): $$p(y_*|D,x_*,\theta_*) \approx \frac{\prod_{i=1}^{N_{\mathrm{MBC}}} p_{\mathrm{GP}}(y_*|$D^{{(i)}}$,x_*,\theta_*)}{p(y_*|x_*,\theta_*)^{N_{\mathrm{MBC}}-1}},$$ which converts one large Gaussian-process likelihood into a product of small ones, lowering each likelihood evaluation from $O(n^3)$ to $O((n/N_{\mathrm{MBC}})^3)$ while still using every training point, and which parallelizes exactly across the committee members. The second mechanism is the hierarchical prior $\theta_i \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu_\theta, \sigma_\theta)$ over experiment-specific calibration parameters, combined with the joint covariance matrix $K_h$ that adds the simulator-emulator kernel, the model-inadequacy kernel, and observation noise (Equation 2.11); this is what lets the sampler borrow strength across experiments and output a distribution of parameters instead of a single value, with a vine-based sampled correlation matrix for multidimensional parameters. The No-U-Turn Sampler—an adaptive Hamiltonian Monte Carlo algorithm that sets its own trajectory length—explores the resulting posterior, and because its gradients come from automatic differentiation, the statistical model can be specified freely without analytic derivative work.

What would settle it

Re-run the Park-function or electron-gun calibration with the exact joint multivariate likelihood of Equation 2.11 in place of the factorized product of Equation 2.7, holding priors and data fixed, and compare the posterior of $\sigma_\theta$ and the per-experiment credible intervals; a detectable shift would confirm the factorization is load-bearing. A cheaper probe is to raise the number of experiments from 10 toward 50 while keeping the per-experiment design fixed: if the factorized posterior still matches the generating distribution, the independence assumption is innocuous, and if coverage or the recovered variance degrades, the missing cross-experiment correlations are the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, argued through benchmark functions and a realistic accelerator case, is that the Bayesian Committee Machine's product-of-experts likelihood can be embedded inside hierarchical Kennedy–O'Hagan calibration without changing the distribution that MCMC samples. The simulation data is split into $N_{\mathrm{MBC}}$ subsets; each subset is combined with the experimental data to form a Gaussian-process likelihood for the trial parameters, and the subset likelihoods are multiplied together and divided by the $(N_{\mathrm{MBC}}-1)$-th power of the Gaussian-process prior so the variance is not underestimated (Equation 2.13). The hierarchical layer draws each experiment's parameter $\theta_i$ from $\mathcal{N}(\mu_\theta, \sigma_\theta)$, so the posterior yields both per-experiment values and the ensemble distribution; the paper shows that the recovered distribution matches the true generating distribution's moments and covariance on all three test problems, including a 2,400-run simulation set for an accelerator electron gun whose field amplitude must be inferred separately for each experiment. From this the paper concludes that the BCM delivers substantial computational gains while preserving inferential accuracy, and that because it partitions data rather than fitting an inducing-point or low-rank approximation, it avoids biases such approximations can introduce.

Load-bearing premise

The posterior in Equation 2.7 treats each experiment's measured output as its own independent Gaussian-process likelihood factor, discarding the correlations among experimental outputs that the joint covariance matrix in Equation 2.11 encodes; if those cross-experiment correlations carry information, the sampled posterior is misspecified and the reported per-experiment uncertainties are not strictly valid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With eight committee members instead of one, the reported runtime speed-up reaches 15.86× at 150 simulation points and the scaling exponent drops from $O(n^{2.31})$ to $O(n^{1.24})$, so doubling the committee roughly allows doubling the simulation set at the same expected cost.
  • The hierarchical layer recovers the ensemble distribution of the calibration parameters rather than a pooled mean: the inferred $\mu_\theta$ and $\sigma_\theta$ match the generating distribution's moments on the Park and accelerator examples, and the two-dimensional cantilever case additionally recovers the covariance structure between parameter dimensions.
  • Accuracy is preserved only when each committee member sees enough data: the paper finds the error on the inferred moments grows when subsets fall below about 20 simulation points, setting a practical floor on how finely to split.
  • Calibration runtime drops from roughly an hour to about five minutes in the demonstrated regime, which is the difference between an offline analysis and an update an accelerator operator can run between measurements.
  • The BCM partition approach keeps all simulation points in use rather than selecting a subset, so larger training sets reduce the emulator error without a proportional runtime penalty once the committee structure absorbs the extra points.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The factorization in Equation 2.7 (a product over experiments of univariate Gaussian-process densities) is never flagged in the paper as an approximation, yet it omits the cross-experiment correlations present in the joint covariance of Equation 2.11; if those correlations are informative, the per-experiment uncertainties and the recovered $\sigma_\theta$ could be biased, and an exact-likelihood r
  • The paper itself concedes (Section 2.4.1) that the BCM has no proven convergence guarantees outside a small-query regime and that dependence between committee members can distort uncertainty estimates; since the accuracy results are empirical, a conservative transfer rule for new applications is to validate against the full-GP calibration on a subset of the data and to keep each committee member a
  • The same product-of-experts construction should transfer to any inverse problem that repeatedly evaluates a Gaussian-process likelihood against a large, splittable simulation set, such as other accelerator components or physics simulations with expensive forward models, because nothing in the derivation is specific to beam physics.
  • Replacing the random split with a domain-informed partition and replacing the fixed Gaussian hierarchical density with a heavier-tailed or mixture family would directly address the two acknowledged sources of bias—committee dependence and parametric misspecification of the ensemble distribution—that the paper flags in Sections 2.4.2 and 4.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 manuscript proposes a hierarchical extension of Kennedy-O'Hagan Bayesian calibration in which each experiment has its own calibration parameter theta_i with a hierarchical prior, and uses the Bayesian Committee Machine to split the simulation dataset for scalable Gaussian-process likelihood evaluation inside NUTS-based MCMC. The method is tested on the Park and cantilever beam benchmarks and on a synthetic Argonne Wakefield Accelerator example. The central claim is that the BCM integration yields substantial runtime savings while preserving inferential accuracy.

Significance. The combination of hierarchical calibration with BCM is a natural and potentially useful contribution for simulation-heavy calibration problems, and the paper provides a concrete Julia implementation, runtime scaling experiments, and an honest discussion of BCM limitations. However, the manuscript's accuracy claims are undermined by an internal inconsistency in the likelihood definition and by a direct contradiction in the reported application results, so the significance as presented is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (2.7) and Eq. (2.11)] Equation (2.7) writes the posterior as a product over experiments of univariate GP densities p_GPz(z_exp,i | ...), while Equation (2.11) gives the joint multivariate normal density with covariance K_h(theta, phi). These are not equivalent: after integrating out the shared emulator eta and discrepancy delta, the experimental outputs are correlated through the off-diagonal terms of K_h, and the product in Eq. (2.7) ignores those correlations. The manuscript never identifies Eq. (2.7) as an approximation. If the implementation follows Eq. (2.7), the sampled posterior is based on a misspecified likelihood; if it follows Eq. (2.11), the paper misstates the model. Either way, the claim in §5 that the framework 'quantify[ies] uncertainty reliably' is not supported.
  2. [§3.6, Table 6] The text states that 'the true value lies within the standard deviation of the corresponding NUTS-MC chain.' This is contradicted by the table in many rows; for example, row 5 has D_exp = 57.5829, E[theta] = 53.8301, and Sigma = 0.0284, a discrepancy of roughly 132 posterior standard deviations, and rows 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14 show similar departures. These results indicate that the individual calibration parameters are not recovered and that the reported posterior uncertainties are far too small, consistent with the misspecification in Eq. (2.7). The accuracy half of the central claim is therefore empirically contradicted by the paper's own application.
  3. [§2.4.1 and §4] Section 2.4.1 concedes that there are no convergence guarantees for BCM when the number of query points (here, the number of experiments) is below the effective degrees of freedom, and §4 acknowledges that the approximation error has no known bounds. Nevertheless, §4 concludes that 'the BCM approximation is accurate and samples the same target distribution.' That conclusion rests on two benchmarks with particular data ratios and does not cover the AWA regime with N_exp = 15; together with the likelihood inconsistency above, the general claim of 'preserving inferential accuracy' is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2.2)] Equation (2.2) contains rendering artifacts ('radicaltp/radicalvertex') and should be typeset properly.
  2. [§2.4, after Eq. (2.14)] The discussion after Eq. (2.14) is confusing: it says D_exp is 'not conditionally independent from itself,' but the equation concerns splitting D_sim; please clarify the conditional-independence assumptions in the BCM combination.
  3. [§2.5] Section 2.5 states that emulator hyperparameters Phi_eta are optimised beforehand, whereas the posterior in Eq. (2.5) includes all hyperparameters; the change in inferential target should be stated explicitly when the model is introduced.
  4. [Table 6] Table 6 would be clearer if the columns used sigma instead of Sigma for the chain standard deviation, and if the number of committee members used in the AWA run were reported.
  5. [§3.5] The statement that chain convergence was 'not explicitly evaluated' should be addressed with standard diagnostics such as R-hat, especially since the AWA chains are short.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hierarchical KOH/BCM derivation is built from Bayes' rule and standard GP machinery, hyperparameters are fit to simulation data via empirical Bayes, and all accuracy claims are checked against full-GP benchmarks and true synthetic parameters rather than being read back from the fit.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce a claimed prediction to its own inputs. The posterior in Eq. 2.5 is a direct consequence of Bayes' rule applied to the KOH GP likelihood in Eq. 2.4; the hierarchical extension in Eqs. 2.7-2.10 adds a hierarchical prior on experiment-specific parameters without defining the target distribution in terms of the fitted values. The BCM approximation in Eq. 2.13 is cited to Tresp (exogenous literature, not the authors' prior work) and is used only as a computational approximation of the GP likelihood, whose accuracy is separately checked against the 1-MBC full-GP case on Park, cantilever-beam, and AWA synthetic benchmarks. The pre-optimisation of the simulation-emulator hyperparameters on Dsim (Section 2.5) is empirical Bayes: it fits nuisance hyperparameters to the simulation data, but the calibrated objects of interest are the experiment-specific parameters theta_i and the hierarchical moments, which are not the fitted constants. The paper also discloses the relevant limitations, including the lack of BCM convergence guarantees (Section 2.4.1) and the bias from prescribing a parametric hierarchical distribution (Section 4), which cuts against any attempt to hide a circular premise. A separate correctness concern exists: Eq. 2.7 factors the experimental likelihood into a product over experiments of univariate GP densities while Eq. 2.11 presents the joint multivariate-normal density, and these are not equivalent; Table 6 also shows several Dexp values several posterior standard deviations from the chain means. Those are potential model-misspecification or implementation-validity issues, not instances of a prediction being equivalent by construction to a fitted input. Thus no circularity step meeting the required evidence standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main burdens are the unstated product-form likelihood approximation, the acknowledged BCM conditional-independence assumption, the choice of a Gaussian hierarchical prior, and reliance on simulator-generated synthetic observations for the accelerator example. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • GP emulator hyperparameters (λη, lη) = not reported in paper
    Optimized by maximum likelihood on Dsim before MCMC sampling (Section 2.5), a plug-in empirical Bayes step rather than full Bayesian treatment.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption BCM conditional independence of simulation subsets Dsim^(i)
    Used in Eq 2.13 and Eq 2.15 to combine committee likelihoods; Section 2.4.1 acknowledges it is not strictly true.
  • ad hoc to paper Experimental likelihood factorizes as a product of univariate GP marginals (Eq 2.7)
    The paper uses a product over experiments for the likelihood without deriving it from the joint GP in Eq 2.11; this is an unstated approximation that can underestimate posterior uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Hierarchical prior θ_i ~ N(µθ, σθ) with uniform hyperpriors
    Prescribing a parametric target distribution introduces bias, acknowledged in Section 4; uniform hyperprior choices follow Gelman (2006).
  • domain assumption Matérn-3/2 kernel with ARD lengthscales as the emulator covariance
    Kernel choice from Higdon et al. [3]; not empirically cross-validated against other kernels.
  • domain assumption Simulator outputs (OPAL) are the ground truth for synthetic observations
    AWA example uses synthetic data from OPAL; no experimental measurements yet, so the method's field performance is unvalidated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical Bayesian Calibration with Bayesian Committee Machine." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GLODGQF4

@misc{pith2026260812603,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical Bayesian Calibration with Bayesian Committee Machine},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GLODGQF4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12603}
}
read the original abstract

Calibrating computational models to experimental data is a core task in applied statistics, especially in scientific domains, where physical experiments are costly and simulations play a central role in design and inference. Motivated by uncertainty quantification challenges in particle accelerator experiments, we develop and evaluate a Hierarchical Bayesian Calibration framework. In contrast to standard Bayesian calibration, certain inputs - such as beam injection amplitude - must be estimated separately for each experiment. We adopt the Kennedy-O'Hagan formulation and extend it with a hierarchical prior structure to model the distribution of experiment-specific calibration parameters, thus borrowing strength and improving generalisation across repeated experiments. A key methodological challenge arises from the need to evaluate a large number of forward simulations, which renders conventional Markov chain Monte Carlo approaches computationally prohibitive. To address this, we leverage the Bayesian Committee Machine as a scalable modelling strategy for Gaussian Process emulators. The BCM provides a principled divide-and-conquer approach, enabling parallel inference and reducing computational cost without requiring problem-specific tuning of the emulator approximation. Posterior sampling is performed using the No-U-Turn Sampler, supported by automatic differentiation in Julia, which removes the need for analytic gradient derivation and facilitates flexible model specification. We assess the proposed framework using established benchmark problems and simulated data from the Argonne Wakefield Accelerator. The results demonstrate substantial computational savings and robust calibration performance, highlighting the applicability of the method to large-scale scientific modelling problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12603 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparing Common (a) and Hierarchical Bayesian Calibration (b): Both combine the experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Bayesian Calibration with Bayesian Committee Machine: After splitting the simulation data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Full Hierarchical Bayesian Calibration with Bayesian Committee machine: First, the simulation data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the Argonne Wakefield Accelerator beam test facility. In this work we consider the very [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of data set size on the runtime of the BayesCal. The data series 1 MBC shows the scaling for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Inferred PDF N (µP ost, σP ost) of the parameter θ including uncertainty compared to true Gaussian PDF P(θtrue) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Covariance structure in the θ dimensions comparing the true covariance with the inferred posterior covariance. The notation N (µpost, σ68%) denotes the posterior mean together with the corresponding 68% interval. The plot also displays the individual sampling chains as…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The inferred hierarchical PDF compared with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Runtime of hierarchical BayesCal with and without BCM for two different simulation data set sizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The square root error on the moments of hierarchical BayesCal with and without BCM dependent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The square root error on the moments of the BayesCal at sample chain length 100 against total data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The runtime of the BayesCal with an error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The inferred hierarchical gun injection amplitude PDF compared with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bayesian Inference: An Introduction to Principles and Practice in Machine Learning

    Tipping ME. Bayesian Inference: An Introduction to Principles and Practice in Machine Learning. In: Bousquet O, von Luxburg U, Rätsch G, editors. Advanced Lectures on Machine Learning: ML Summer Schools 2003, Canberra, Australia, February 2 - 14, 2003, Tübingen, Germany, August 4 - 16, 2003, Revised Lectures. Springer; 2004. p. 41–62. A vailable from: htt...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-28650-9_3 2003

  2. [2]

    Bayesian calibration of computer models

    Kennedy MC, O’Hagan A. Bayesian calibration of computer models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Sta- tistical Methodology). 2001;63(3):425–464. A vailable from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9868. 00294

    doi:10.1111/1467-9868 2001

  3. [3]

    Combining Field Data and Computer Simulations for Calibration and Predic- tion

    Higdon D, Kennedy M, Cavendish JC, et al. Combining Field Data and Computer Simulations for Calibration and Predic- tion. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing. 2004;26(2):448–466. A vailable from: https://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/ S1064827503426693

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Computer model validation with functional output

    Bayarri MJ, Walsh D, Berger JO, et al. Computer model validation with functional output. The Annals of Statis- tics. 2007;35(5):1874–1906. A vailable from: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/annals-of-statistics/volume-35/issue-5/ Computer-model-validation-with-functional-output/10.1214/009053607000000163.full

    work page doi:10.1214/009053607000000163.full 2007

  5. [5]

    Predicting Vehicle Crashworthiness: Validation of Computer Models for Functional and Hierarchical Data

    Bayarri MJ, Berger JO, Kennedy MC, et al. Predicting Vehicle Crashworthiness: Validation of Computer Models for Functional and Hierarchical Data. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2009;104(487):929–943. A vailable from: https: //doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2009.ap06623

    work page doi:10.1198/jasa.2009.ap06623 2009

  6. [6]

    Computer Model Calibration Using High-Dimensional Output

    Higdon D, Gattiker J, Williams B, et al. Computer Model Calibration Using High-Dimensional Output. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2008;103(482):570–583. A vailable from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27640080

    work page arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Reified Bayesian modelling and inference for physical systems

    Goldstein M, Rougier J. Reified Bayesian modelling and inference for physical systems. Journal of Statistical Planning and In- ference. 2009;139(3):1221–1239. A vailable from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378375808003303

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling for Integrating Low-Accuracy and High-Accuracy Experiments

    Qian PZG, Wu CFJ. Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling for Integrating Low-Accuracy and High-Accuracy Experiments. Tech- nometrics. 2008;50(2):192–204. A vailable from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25471459. This manuscript is for review purposes only. HIERARCHICAL BAYESIAN CALIBRATION WITH BCM 25

    work page arXiv 2008

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Efficient calibration for imperfect computer models

    Tuo R, Wu CFJ. Efficient calibration for imperfect computer models. The Annals of Statistics. 2015; 43(6):2331–2352. A vailable from: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/annals-of-statistics/volume-43/issue-6/ Efficient-calibration-for-imperfect-computer-models/10.1214/15-AOS1314.full

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    Bayesian Calibration of Inexact Computer Models

    Plumlee M. Bayesian Calibration of Inexact Computer Models. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2017; 112(519):1274–1285. A vailable from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2016.1211016

    2017

  3. [11]

    A unified framework for multilevel uncertainty quantification in Bayesian inverse problems

    Nagel JB, Sudret B. A unified framework for multilevel uncertainty quantification in Bayesian inverse problems. Prob- abilistic Engineering Mechanics. 2016;43:68–84. A vailable from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0266892015300266

    2016

  4. [12]

    Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning

    Rasmussen CE, Williams CKI. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. The MIT Press; 2005. A vailable from: https: //direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/2320/Gaussian-Processes-for-Machine-Learning

    2005

  5. [13]

    Variational Learning of Inducing Variables in Sparse Gaussian Processes

    Titsias M. Variational Learning of Inducing Variables in Sparse Gaussian Processes. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR; 2009. p. 567–574. A vailable from: https: //proceedings.mlr.press/v5/titsias09a.html

    2009

  6. [14]

    Convergence of Sparse Variational Inference in Gaussian Processes Regression

    Burt DR, Rasmussen CE, van der Wilk M. Convergence of Sparse Variational Inference in Gaussian Processes Regression. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2020;21(131):1–63. A vailable from: http://jmlr.org/papers/v21/19-1015.html

    2020

  7. [15]

    Adaptive Sparse Variational Approximations for Gaussian Process Regression

    Nieman D, Szabó B. Adaptive Sparse Variational Approximations for Gaussian Process Regression. Bayesian Analysis. 2025;:1–20A vailable from: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/bayesian-analysis/advance-publication/ Adaptive-Sparse-Variational-Approximations-for-Gaussian-Proces...

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    Estimation and Model Identification for Continuous Spatial Processes

    Vecchia A V. Estimation and Model Identification for Continuous Spatial Processes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological). 1988;50(2):297–312. A vailable from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2345768

    1988

  9. [17]

    A General Framework for Vecchia Approximations of Gaussian Processes

    Katzfuss M, Guinness J. A General Framework for Vecchia Approximations of Gaussian Processes. Statistical Sci- ence. 2021;36(1):124–141. A vailable from: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/statistical-science/volume-36/issue-1/ A-General-Framework-for-Vecchia-Approximations-of...

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Using the Nyström Method to Speed Up Kernel Machines

    Williams C, Seeger M. Using the Nyström Method to Speed Up Kernel Machines. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems; Vol. 13. MIT Press; 2000. A vailable from: https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2000/hash/ 19de10adbaa1b2ee13f77f679fa1483a-Abstract.html

    2000

  11. [19]

    When Gaussian Process Meets Big Data: A Review of Scalable GPs

    Liu H, Ong YS, Shen X, et al. When Gaussian Process Meets Big Data: A Review of Scalable GPs. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems. 2020;31(11):4405–4423. A vailable from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/ 8951257

    2020

  12. [20]

    A Bayesian Committee Machine

    Tresp V. A Bayesian Committee Machine. Neural Computation. 2000;12(11):2719–2741. A vailable from: https://direct.mit. edu/neco/article/12/11/2719-2741/6426

    2000

  13. [21]

    Gaussian Processes for Regression

    Williams C, Rasmussen C. Gaussian Processes for Regression. In: Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems; Vol. 8. MIT Press; 1995. A vailable from: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/1995/hash/ 7cce53cf90577442771720a370c3c723-Abstract.html

    1995

  14. [22]

    Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models (comment on article by Browne and Draper)

    Gelman A. Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models (comment on article by Browne and Draper). Bayesian Analysis. 2006;1(3):515–534. A vailable from: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/bayesian-analysis/volume-1/ issue-3/Prior-distributions-for-varianc...

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    Generating random correlation matrices based on vines and extended onion method

    Lewandowski D, Kurowicka D, Joe H. Generating random correlation matrices based on vines and extended onion method. Journal of Multivariate Analysis. 2009;100(9):1989–2001. A vailable from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0047259X09000876

    2009

  16. [24]

    The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo

    Hoffman MD, Gelman A. The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2014;15(47):1593–1623. A vailable from: http://jmlr.org/papers/v15/hoffman14a.html

    2014

  17. [25]

    Turing: A Language for Flexible Probabilistic Inference

    Ge H, Xu K, Ghahramani Z. Turing: A Language for Flexible Probabilistic Inference. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR; 2018. p. 1682–1690. A vailable from: https: //proceedings.mlr.press/v84/ge18b.html

    2018

  18. [26]

    AdvancedHMC.jl: A robust, modular and efficient implementation of advanced HMC algo- rithms

    Xu K, Ge H, Tebbutt W, et al. AdvancedHMC.jl: A robust, modular and efficient implementation of advanced HMC algo- rithms. In: Proceedings of The 2nd Symposium on Advances in Approximate Bayesian Inference. PMLR; 2020. p. 1–10. A vailable from: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v11...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Sparse Greedy Gaussian Process Regression

    Smola A, Bartlett P. Sparse Greedy Gaussian Process Regression. In: Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems; Vol. 13. MIT Press; 2000. A vailable from: https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2000/hash/ 3214a6d842cc69597f9edf26df552e43-Abstract.html

    2000

  20. [28]

    Fast Sparse Gaussian Process Methods: The Informative Vector Machine

    Lawrence N, Seeger M, Herbrich R. Fast Sparse Gaussian Process Methods: The Informative Vector Machine. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems; Vol. 15. MIT Press; 2002. A vailable from: https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/ paper/2002/hash/d4dd111a4fd973394238aca...

    2002

  21. [29]

    Distributed Gaussian processes

    Deisenroth MP, Ng JW. Distributed Gaussian processes. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 37; (ICML’15; Vol. 37). JMLR.org; 2015. p. 1481–1490

    2015

  22. [30]

    Sparse On-Line Gaussian Processes

    Csató L, Opper M. Sparse On-Line Gaussian Processes. Neural Computation. 2002;14(3):641–668. A vailable from: https: //doi.org/10.1162/089976602317250933

    2002 doi

  23. [31]

    Generalized Robust Bayesian Committee Machine for Large-scale Gaussian Process Regression

    Liu H, Cai J, Wang Y, et al. Generalized Robust Bayesian Committee Machine for Large-scale Gaussian Process Regression. In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR; 2018. p. 3131–3140. A vailable from: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v80/liu18a.html

    2018

  24. [32]

    A sparse Bayesian Committee Machine potential for oxygen-containing organic compounds

    Willow SY, Kim S, Yang DC, et al. A sparse Bayesian Committee Machine potential for oxygen-containing organic compounds. Chemical Physics Reviews. 2025;6(2). A vailable from: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/cpr/article/6/2/021401/ 3344282/A-sparse-Bayesian-Committee-Machine-potential-for

    2025

  25. [33]

    A statistical method for tuning a computer code to a data base

    Cox DD, Park JS, Singer CE. A statistical method for tuning a computer code to a data base. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis. 2001;37(1):77–92. A vailable from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167947300000578

    2001

  26. [34]

    Investigation of reliability method formulations in DAKOTA/UQ

    Eldred MS, Agarwal H, Perez VM, et al. Investigation of reliability method formulations in DAKOTA/UQ. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. 2007;3(3):199–213. A vailable from: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470500254618

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    Research Program and Recent Results at the Argonne Wakefield Accelerator Facility (A W A)

    Conde M, Antipov S, Doran D, et al. Research Program and Recent Results at the Argonne Wakefield Accelerator Facility (A W A). JACOW, Geneva, Switzerland; 2017. p. 2885–2887. A vailable from:https://proceedings.jacow.org/ipac2017/doi/ JACoW-IPAC2017-WEPAB132.html

    2017

  28. [36]

    OPAL a Versatile Tool for Charged Particle Accelerator Simulations; 2019

    Adelmann A, Calvo P, Frey M, et al. OPAL a Versatile Tool for Charged Particle Accelerator Simulations; 2019. A vailable from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.06654. This manuscript is for review purposes only

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.