Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

The Use of Variational Inference for Lifetime Data with Spatial Correlations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Variational inference using Rényi $\alpha$-divergence approximates spatially correlated lifetime-data posteriors nearly as accurately as Hamiltonian Monte Carlo while taking about half the computing time.

desk verdict A useful case-study demonstration that alpha-divergence VI roughly matches HMC on in-sample fit for spatial lifetime models at about 2x speed, but the 'comparable inference performance' claim outruns the evidence because the VI credible intervals look overconfident. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09559 v1 pith:2K5XTIK2 submitted 2025-07-13 stat.ME stat.AP

Yueyao Wang , Yili Hong , Laura Freeman , Xinwei Deng This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEstat.AP MSC 62F1562N0162H1162N05
keywords variationalinferencealpha-divergencespatialrandomeffectslifetimedataBayesianHamiltonianMonteCarloacceleratedfailuretimemodelproportionalhazards
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

Bayesian inference for lifetime data with spatial correlations gets slow as the number of locations grows, because sampling the posterior with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo is expensive. The paper asks whether variational inference, which turns inference into optimization, can substitute for sampling while preserving accuracy. It claims yes for the two spatial lifetime models it studies—an accelerated failure time model for Titan GPU failures and a proportional hazards model for pine tree survival—provided the divergence being minimized is Rényi $\alpha$-divergence rather than KL divergence. With $\alpha = 0.8$, the variational posterior gives negative log-likelihood values almost identical to HMC and runs about two times faster on both datasets. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as evidence that optimization-based approximate Bayesian inference is a viable fast route for spatial time-to-event models.

What carries the argument

The engine is black-box variational inference built on the variational Rényi bound, $L_{\alpha} = \frac{1}{1-\alpha}\log E_{q(\theta|\eta)}\left[(p(\theta,D)/q(\theta|\eta))^{1-\alpha}\right]$, with the expectation approximated by Monte Carlo samples and the bound optimized with a stochastic gradient optimizer. The variational family is mean-field: independent Gaussian distributions for regression coefficients, log-scale parameters, and spatial random effects, plus inverse-gamma distributions for the spatial variance $s_{\gamma}^2$ and length scale $\nu$. Setting $\alpha < 1$ is the crucial choice because it encourages a mass-covering approximation, whereas KL divergence (the $\alpha\to 1$ limit) narrows the approximation around modes; the paper attributes KL's worse fits and slower convergence to this zero-forcing behavior. Sampling from the fitted variational distribution then yields point estimates and credible intervals in the same way sampling from an MCMC posterior does.

What would settle it

Re-estimate the pine tree model with a variational family that allows the spatial random effects to be correlated instead of independent. If the VI point estimate of the baseline hazard parameter $a$ moves from 0.0444 toward the HMC value 0.0243 by more than the reported standard errors, or if VI credible intervals cover the HMC posterior at far below the nominal rate, the claim of comparable inference would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, in its own terms, is that VI with $\alpha$-divergence at $\alpha = 0.8$ has inference performance comparable to HMC for spatially correlated lifetime data while cutting computing time by roughly half. The evidence is two case studies: for Titan GPU lifetimes the negative log-likelihood is 4481.04 for VI versus 4470.13 for HMC, with 42.7 minutes versus 86.53 minutes; for pine tree survival the NLL is 11149.40 versus 11147.80, with 3.19 hours versus 7.79 hours. Point estimates of most coefficients from $\alpha$-divergence lie closer to HMC than those from KL-divergence VI do, and KL divergence produces visibly worse residual fits and NLL values. In the GPU subset experiments, the time gap between VI and HMC widens as the number of spatial locations increases.

Load-bearing premise

The mean-field assumption, which forces all parameters and spatial random effects to be independent in the approximate posterior, is rich enough that the optimized variational posterior keeps both the point estimates and the uncertainty close to the true posterior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the two datasets studied, practitioners can get near-HMC posterior summaries for spatial accelerated failure time and proportional hazards models in about half the wall-clock time by using VI at $\alpha = 0.8$.
  • KL-divergence VI should not be treated as a safe default for these models, because it produced worse negative log-likelihood, worse residual plots, and slower convergence than $\alpha$-divergence in both case studies.
  • The computational advantage of VI over HMC grows with the number of spatial locations, so the method has the most to offer exactly where MCMC is most expensive.
  • The reported estimates of GPU cage and node effects, pine thinning and region effects, spatial correlation decay curves, and random-effect maps are all obtainable from the variational fit at roughly half the computing cost of the HMC benchmark.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the roughly 2x speedup extrapolates to thousands of spatial locations, the practical bottleneck for these models shifts from posterior sampling to the manual tuning of the Monte Carlo sample size and the value of $\alpha$, both of which the paper leaves to empirical selection.
  • Editorial extension: the reported gaps in baseline-hazard and physical-region estimates between VI and HMC, with much smaller VI standard errors, suggest that a variational family with correlated spatial random effects is the natural next test; the paper names this trade-off but does not quantify it.
  • Editorial extension: a spatial-aware cross-validation scheme that splits sites by distance rather than randomly could make $\alpha$ selection and out-of-sample prediction comparisons possible; the paper identifies cross-validation as open but does not implement it.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the use of variational inference (VI) for Bayesian inference in spatially correlated lifetime data. Two model families are considered: a cumulative-exposure/accelerated-failure-time model for the Titan GPU data and a proportional-hazards model with Weibull baseline for the pine-tree data. The authors implement black-box VI with KL divergence and Rényi α-divergence under a mean-field variational family (diagonal Gaussian components plus independent inverse-gamma components for variance and length-scale parameters), and compare against Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (NUTS in Stan). On the two case studies, α-divergence VI with α=0.8 achieves negative log-likelihood values close to HMC (4481.04 vs 4470.13 for GPU; 11149.40 vs 11147.80 for pine) with roughly half the reported computing time, whereas KL-divergence VI performs markedly worse. The paper concludes that α-divergence VI has inference performance comparable to HMC at lower computational cost.

Significance. The practical question addressed—whether VI can substitute for expensive MCMC in spatial survival models—is relevant, and the case studies use real, publicly available data. The manuscript is transparent about the mean-field independence assumption and its potential bias, and it provides detailed tables and residual plots. If the uncertainty calibration issue can be resolved or the claims appropriately narrowed, the demonstration of a roughly 2x speedup with similar in-sample fit would be useful for practitioners. However, in its current form the central claim is stronger than the evidence: the reported standard errors suggest systematic overconfidence in several VI estimates, and no direct comparison of spatial random effects is presented. These gaps are load-bearing for 'comparable inference performance,' not merely presentation issues.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Tables 4 and 6] The conclusion in Section 5 that α-divergence VI has 'comparable inference performance as HMC' is not supported for posterior uncertainty. Table 6 reports pine baseline a = 0.0444 (SE 0.0023) for VI versus 0.0243 (SE 0.0240) for HMC, a difference of roughly 8.7 VI standard errors, and Physical Region (Coastal Plain) = 0.0273 (SE 0.0501) versus 0.5873 (SE 0.7354); Table 4 shows analogous discrepancies, e.g., Constant 2.0235 (0.0166) versus 1.9306 (0.0278) and σ 0.2289 (0.0056) versus 0.2038 (0.0053). These patterns indicate that the mean-field VI credible intervals are narrower than the HMC posterior, i.e., overconfident. The NLL comparisons and residual plots establish in-sample predictive fit, not calibrated posterior intervals. Since Section 5 itself acknowledges that the independence assumption can bias random-effect estimation, the central claim needs to be either accompanied by a calibration comparison (e.g., coverage of HMC posterior means under VI intervals, or interval-overlap diagnostics) or explicitly restricted to point prediction and in-sample fit.
  2. [Section 4.3, Figures 5 and 9] No direct comparison of spatial random-effect estimates between VI and HMC is given; Figures 5 and 9 display only the α-divergence VI random-effect maps, and Figures 3 and 7 compare residuals rather than random effects. The random effects are the mechanism for spatial correlation, and the Section 5 discussion specifically identifies them as the component most likely to be biased by the mean-field assumption. To support the claim of comparable inference, the authors should report a direct comparison (e.g., a scatterplot of VI versus HMC posterior means, summary of differences, and interval coverage) for the random effects in both case studies.
  3. [Section 4.1, Tables 3 and 5] The computational-efficiency claim is central, but the reported times lack implementation context. The manuscript does not state the software versions, hardware, number of HMC chains, warm-up and post-warm-up draws, VI optimizer settings, or whether all methods were run on the same machine. Table 3 ('Time (minutes) 42.7/55.23/86.53') and Table 5 ('Time (hours) 3.19/5.25/7.79') therefore cannot be independently assessed, and the 2x speedup may not be robust to tuning choices. Please provide a reproducibility appendix with these details and, if possible, timing variability across repeated runs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.1, Equation (2)] Equation (2) uses φ and Φ as a generic location-scale density and cdf, but Section 4.2.1 assumes a standard smallest extreme value error. Please state explicitly that φ and Φ are the SEV density and cdf (or write the Weibull likelihood directly) to avoid ambiguity with the normal-based notation.
  2. [Table 2] The crown-class rows list counts whose sum is 20,271 (144.4% of 14,044); please clarify whether these are per-follow-up-tree records rather than per-tree counts, and adjust the N (%) column accordingly.
  3. [Data Availability Statement] The data availability statement contains truncated URLs; please provide the complete links and, if available, the analysis code used to produce Tables 3–6 and Figures 3–9.
  4. [Sections 4.2 and 4.3] The manuscript repeatedly references 'Supplementary Section 1/2/3' but the supplementary material is not included; please make it available for review and cite the relevant results explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the VI-versus-HMC comparison is benchmarked against an external sampler, and the paper's load-bearing choices are tuning parameters rather than fitted quantities renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's claimed contribution is an empirical comparison of variational inference (KL and alpha-divergence) against HMC/NUTS in Stan for spatially correlated lifetime models. The derivation chain is: specify likelihood and priors; define the variational family; use the standard variational Renyi bound of Li and Turner (2016) and the black-box gradient procedure of Hernandez-Lobato et al. (2016) and Ranganath et al. (2014); optimize with Adam; then form point estimates and credible intervals from the fitted variational distribution. Each of these steps is imported from external, non-self-cited methodology, and the benchmark is an external sampler. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction: the NLL, residual probability plots, and computing times are evaluated on the same data, but they are descriptive comparisons, not predictions generated from fitted parameters in a way that would force the stated conclusion. The choices alpha = 0.8 and h = 500/800 are tuning decisions, and the paper reports sensitivity analyses over alpha in [0.3, 0.9] and over h, so they are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The self-citations (Min et al. 2025 for GPU data processing and Stan transformations; Li et al. 2015 for the pine data) involve an overlapping author, Yili Hong, but they supply data and implementation conventions, not the load-bearing inferential claim. Section 5 explicitly acknowledges a genuine limitation: the mean-field independence assumption 'can introduce some estimation bias, especially for the spatial random effects,' with supplementary results on this point. That limitation concerns calibration and validity of the variational approximation, not circularity of the derivation. No circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central comparison pulls two established models and one established approximate-inference scheme from the cited literature and combines them. The load-bearing free choices are the divergence order alpha, the MC sample size h, the inverse-gamma hyperparameters (including a strong prior on the range nu), and the pine tree site subset. No new entities, particles, or mediators are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (Renyi divergence order) = 0.8
    Chosen by testing values in [0.3, 0.9] on the same datasets; performance was similar across the range, but the choice is empirical and not cross-validated (Section 5).
  • h (MC samples per gradient step) = 500 (GPU), 800 (pine)
    Selected by a variance tradeoff of the variational bound and its gradient; details are deferred to the absent Supplementary Section 1 (Section 5).
  • Inverse-gamma prior hyperparameters for nu and s2_gamma = a_sigma=1, b_sigma=1; a_nu=13, b_nu=0.1 (GPU); a_nu=5, b_nu=0.1 (pine)
    Chosen by hand; the nu prior is described as strong and directly affects the estimated spatial correlation range in both case studies (Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3.1).
  • Pine tree site subset = 60 of 182 sites, 14,044 trees
    Randomly selected subset due to computational limitation; the randomness is not seed-documented, and the restriction limits the generality of the pine tree results (Section 2.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spatial random effects gamma follow MVN(0, s2_gamma * Omega) with exponential correlation rho(d) = exp(-d/nu).
    Both models in Section 3.1 use this Gaussian structure and correlation kernel; the GPU analysis further assumes cabinet row and column indices approximate physical positions (Section 4.2.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The mean-field variational family (independent Gaussian and inverse-gamma components) is expressive enough for reliable point and uncertainty estimates.
    Adopted in Section 3.2 to simplify optimization; the paper concedes this can introduce estimation bias for spatial random effects (Section 5), and reported SEs are much tighter than HMC's for several parameters.
  • domain assumption The AFT error distribution is standard smallest extreme value and the PH baseline hazard is Weibull, h0(t) = a * t^b.
    Stated in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3.1; the pine tree residual plot shows tail curvature, indicating partial model misfit.
  • standard math Black-box VI theory holds: the VR bound in Equation 8, the Monte Carlo estimator in Equation 9, and the score-function gradient are valid for these models.
    Imported from Hernandez-Lobato et al. (2016) and Li and Turner (2016) in Section 3.2.2; not re-derived but standard.
  • domain assumption Improper flat priors (beta proportional to 1, mu proportional to 1, theta_h proportional to 1) yield proper posteriors for these likelihoods.
    The prior block in Section 3.2 states these priors; no propriety check is provided, but the large sample sizes make the likelihood dominate in practice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Use of Variational Inference for Lifetime Data with Spatial Correlations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2K5XTIK2

@misc{pith2026250709559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Use of Variational Inference for Lifetime Data with Spatial Correlations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2K5XTIK2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09559}
}
read the original abstract

Lifetime data with spatial correlations are often collected for analysis in modern engineering, clinical, and medical applications. For such spatial lifetime data, statistical models usually account for the spatial dependence through spatial random effects, such as the cumulative exposure model and the proportional hazards model. For these models, the Bayesian estimation is commonly used for model inference, but often encounters computational challenges when the number of spatial locations is large. The conventional Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods for sampling the posterior can be time-consuming. In this case-study paper, we investigate the capability of variational inference (VI) for the model inference on spatial lifetime data, aiming for a good balance between the estimation accuracy and computational efficiency. Specifically, the VI methods with different divergence metrics are investigated for the spatial lifetime models. In the case study, the Titan GPU lifetime data and the pine tree lifetime data are used to examine the VI methods in terms of their computational advantage and estimation accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09559 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The OTB failure proportion of GPU nodes in different cabinet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The mortality rate of pine trees across 60 selected US site [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We can see that for α-divergence, its probability plot of residual is almost aligned with the standard Weibull distribution. While the KL divergence has some deviation at the tail of residuals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Weibull probability plot of residuals for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The estimated spatial correlation versus distance from V [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The heat map of estimated random effects from VI with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The computing time of three inference methods versus th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Weibull probability plot of residuals for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Estimated spatial correlation versus distance and histog [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Estimated random effects obtained from VI with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Banerjee, S., M. M. Wall, and B. P. Carlin (2003). Frailty modeling for spatially correlated survival data, with application to infant mortality in Minnesota . Biostatistics\/ 4\/ (1), 123--142

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Bianchi, and N

    Bernardi, M., D. Bianchi, and N. Bianco (2024). Variational inference for large bayesian vector autoregressions. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics\/ 42\/ (3), 1066--1082

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Blei, D. M., A. Kucukelbir, and J. D. McAuliffe (2017). Variational inference: A review for statisticians. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 112\/ (518), 859--877

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Perne, M

    Bo s koski, P., M. Perne, M. Rame s a, and B. M. Boshkoska (2021). Variational Bayes survival analysis for unemployment modelling. Knowledge-Based Systems\/ 229 , 107335

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Gelman, M

    Carpenter, B., A. Gelman, M. D. Hoffman, D. Lee, B. Goodrich, M. Betancourt, M. Brubaker, J. Guo, P. Li, and A. Riddell (2017). Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software\/ 76\/ (1)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)\/ 34\/ (2), 187--202

    1972

  7. [7]

    Cressie, N. and J. Kornak (2003). Spatial statistics in the presence of location error with an application to remote sensing of the environment. Statistical science\/ , 436--456

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Diva, U., D. K. Dey, and S. Banerjee (2008). Parametric models for spatially correlated survival data for individuals with multiple cancers. Statistics in Medicine\/ 27\/ (12), 2127--2144

    work page 2008

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Shimakura, and D

    Henderson, R., S. Shimakura, and D. Gorst (2002). Modeling spatial variation in L eukemia survival data. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 97\/ (460), 965--972

    2002

  2. [10]

    Hernandez-Lobato, J., Y. Li, M. Rowland, T. Bui, D. Hern \'a ndez-Lobato, and R. Turner (2016). Black-box alpha divergence minimization. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pp.\ 1511--1520

    2016

  3. [11]

    Hoffman, M. D. and D. M. Blei (2015). Structured stochastic variational inference. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pp.\ 361--369

    2015

  4. [12]

    Hoffman, M. D. and A. Gelman (2014). The No-U-Turn sampler: adaptively setting path lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo . Journal of Machine Learning Research\/ 15\/ (1), 1593--1623

    2014

  5. [13]

    Hong, Y. and W. Q. Meeker (2010). Field-failure and warranty prediction based on auxiliary use-rate information. Technometrics\/ 52\/ (2), 148--159

    2010

  6. [14]

    Hong, Y. and W. Q. Meeker (2013). Field-failure predictions based on failure-time data with dynamic covariate information. Technometrics\/ 55\/ (2), 135--149

    2013

  7. [15]

    Jacquez, G. M. (1999). Spatial statistics when locations are uncertain. Geographic Information Sciences\/ 5\/ (2), 77--87

    1999

  8. [16]

    Jung, A. W. and M. Gerstung (2021). Bayesian Cox regression for population-scale inference in electronic health records. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10057\/

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kim, M. and V. Pavlovic (2018). Variational inference for Gaussian process models for survival analysis. In 34th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 2018, UAI 2018 , pp.\ 435--445

    2018

  10. [18]

    Kingma, D. P. and J. Ba (2014). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980\/

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Klein, J. P. and M. L. Moeschberger (2003). Survival A nalysis: T echniques for C ensored and T runcated D ata . Springer

    2003

  12. [20]

    Kucukelbir, A., D. Tran, R. Ranganath, A. Gelman, and D. M. Blei (2017). Automatic differentiation variational inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research\/ 18\/ (14), 1--45

    2017

  13. [21]

    Kundu, P., A. K. Darpe, and M. S. Kulkarni (2019). Weibull accelerated failure time regression model for remaining useful life prediction of bearing working under multiple operating conditions. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing\/ 134 , 106302

    2019

  14. [22]

    Li, J., Y. Hong, R. Thapa, and H. E. Burkhart (2015). Survival analysis of Loblolly pine trees with spatially correlated random effects. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 110\/ (510), 486--502

    2015

  15. [23]

    Li, M. and W. Q. Meeker (2014). Application of Bayesian methods in reliability data analyses. Journal of Quality Technology\/ 46\/ (1), 1--23

    2014

  16. [24]

    Li, Y. and R. E. Turner (2016). R \'e nyi divergence variational inference. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems\/ 29 , 1--9

    2016

  17. [25]

    Meeker, W. Q., L. A. Escobar, and F. G. Pascual (2022). Statistical M ethods for R eliability D ata\/ (2 ed.). John Wiley & Sons

    2022

  18. [26]

    Min, J., Y. Hong, W. Meeker, and O. George (2025). A spatially correlated competing risks time-to-event model for supercomputer GPU failure data. Technometrics\/ , 1--18

    2025

  19. [27]

    Neal, R. M. (2011). Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo, Chapter 5, MCMC using Hamiltonian dynamics. CRC Press

    2011

  20. [28]

    Newby, M. (1988). Accelerated failure time models for reliability data analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety\/ 20\/ (3), 187--197

    1988

  21. [29]

    Maxwell, R

    Ostrouchov, G., D. Maxwell, R. A. Ashraf, C. Engelmann, M. Shankar, and J. H. Rogers (2020). GPU lifetimes on Titan supercomputer: Survival analysis and reliability. In SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis , pp.\ 1--14

    2020

  22. [30]

    Fass \`o , and P

    Otto, P., A. Fass \`o , and P. Maranzano (2024). A review of regularised estimation methods and cross-validation in spatiotemporal statistics. Statistic Surveys\/ 18 , 299--340

    2024

  23. [31]

    Pan, C., B. Cai, L. Wang, and X. Lin (2014). Bayesian semiparametric model for spatially correlated interval-censored survival data. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis\/ 74 , 198--208

    2014

  24. [32]

    Quiroz, M., D. J. Nott, and R. Kohn (2023). Gaussian variational approximations for high-dimensional state space models. Bayesian Analysis\/ 18\/ (3), 989--1016

    2023

  25. [33]

    Gerrish, and D

    Ranganath, R., S. Gerrish, and D. Blei (2014). Black box variational inference. Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR\/ , 814--822

    2014

  26. [34]

    Tran, and D

    Ranganath, R., D. Tran, and D. Blei (2016). Hierarchical variational models. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pp.\ 324--333

    2016

  27. [35]

    Santi, F., M. M. Dickson, G. Espa, E. Taufer, and A. Mazzitelli (2021). Handling spatial dependence under unknown unit locations. Spatial Economic Analysis\/ 16\/ (2), 194--216

    2021

  28. [36]

    Li, and N

    Wan, N., D. Li, and N. Hovakimyan (2020). f -divergence variational inference. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems\/ 33 , 17370--17379

    2020

  29. [37]

    Tao, and R

    Xiu, Z., C. Tao, and R. Henao (2020). Variational learning of individual survival distributions. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning , pp.\ 10--18

    2020

  30. [38]

    Zhao, L., T. E. Hanson, and B. P. Carlin (2009). Mixtures of Polya trees for flexible spatial frailty survival modelling. Biometrika\/ 96\/ (2), 263--276

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.