Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Dirichlet-Neumann Averaging: The DNA of Efficient Gaussian Process Simulation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Averaging Dirichlet- and Neumann-boundary Gaussian fields yields an isotropic field whose covariance is the target, periodised at doubled scale.

desk verdict The DNA averaging idea is genuinely new and worth referee time, but the central covariance identity is false as printed because the basis (2.5) is not orthonormal; the paper needs a mechanical but load-bearing correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07929 v1 pith:6NGCIKSU submitted 2024-12-10 stat.CO cs.NAmath.NAmath.PRstat.ME

Robert Kutri (1 , 2) , Robert Scheichl (1 , 2) ((1) Institute for Mathematics , Heidelberg , (2) Interdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing (IWR) , Heidelberg) This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.COcs.NAmath.NAmath.PRstat.ME MSC 60G1560G6060G1060-0865C20
keywords GaussianrandomfieldsisotropiccovarianceDirichlet-NeumannaveragingcirculantembeddingSPDEsamplingMatérndiscretecosineandsinetransformsboundaryconditions
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

This paper proposes a way to sample Gaussian random fields with an isotropic covariance on a regular grid without padding the domain or altering the covariance. The idea is to draw several independent fields, one for each combination of homogeneous Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions on the faces of a hypercube, and average them with equal weights. The paper proves that the averaged field's covariance is exactly a periodisation of the target isotropic covariance at twice the scale parameter, so the field is isotropic on the original domain. For Matérn covariances it derives explicit error bounds that decay exponentially in the scale parameter, and numerical experiments indicate that the remaining covariance error is small for typical applications. In the SPDE-based sampling setting, the same averaging is shown to produce genuinely isotropic fields without oversampling.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the DNA field $u_{\alpha,n}=2^{-d/2}\sum_{b\in\{0,1\}^d}u^b_{\alpha,n}$, averaged over all $2^d$ tensor-product bases of cosine and sine functions on $(0,\alpha)^d$. The load-bearing identity is the trigonometric product rule $e^{(r)}_k(\tau_1)e^{(r)}_k(\tau_2)=\frac12(e^{(0)}_k(\tau_1-\tau_2)+(-1)^r e^{(0)}_k(\tau_1+\tau_2))$, combined with the binomial sum $\sum_{b\in\{0,1\}^d}\prod_j(a_j+(-1)^{b_j}b_j)=2^d\prod_j a_j$; together they kill every term depending on $x+y$ and leave only the pairwise differences $x-y$. After relabelling the individual frequency signs $q\in\{-1,1\}^d$, the surviving sum is exactly the Fourier representation of the periodised covariance $\varphi^{(\pi)}_{2\alpha,n}$. In the SPDE version the same eigenfunctions diagonalise $\kappa^2-\Delta$ with eigenvalues $\eta_{\mu,\alpha}=\kappa^2+\pi^2\alpha^{-2}\|\mu\|_2^2$, which match the Matérn spectral density through $\eta_{\mu,\alpha}^{-2\beta}=C_\nu^{-1}\kappa^{2\nu}\hat\varphi((2\alpha)^{-1}\mu)$.

What would settle it

Take the DNA field $u_{\alpha,n}$ on a hypercube with $\alpha=1$ and large $n$, estimate the marginal variance $\mathbb{E}[u_{\alpha,n}(x)^2]$ at an interior point by Monte Carlo, and compare it with the claimed value $\varphi^{(\pi)}_{2\alpha,n}(0)$. Under the basis scaling in (2.5), the constant mode has $L^2$ norm $2^{d/2}$ rather than 1, so the measured variance will deviate from the formula by a known constant factor; this single comparison settles whether the covariance identity holds as written.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that averaging $2^d$ independent random fields, built from tensor products of cosine modes (Neumann) and sine modes (Dirichlet) on a hypercube, cancels the anisotropic $x+y$ terms in their covariance functions exactly. The covariance of the averaged field reduces to $\varphi^{(\pi)}_{2\alpha,n}(x-y)$, a periodisation of the target isotropic covariance $\varphi$ with the period doubled and a controlled truncation. For Matérn covariances the paper proves a total error bound of the form $\|\varphi^{(\pi)}_{2\alpha,n}-\varphi\|_\infty \le C(\alpha^{2\nu+d}n^{-2\nu}+\alpha^{\nu-1/2}e^{-2\vartheta\kappa\alpha})$, so increasing the scale parameter and the truncation together makes the error arbitrarily small. For $d\le3$ and Matérn smoothness $\nu\ge1/2$, the same averaged construction is identified with solutions of the fractional SPDE $(\kappa^2-\Delta)^\beta u = \sqrt{C_\nu}\kappa^{-\nu}W$ under mixed Dirichlet/Neumann boundary conditions; Corollary 2.8 states that this averaged SPDE solution is genuinely isotropic with no domain extension.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sine/cosine basis used in the expansion is orthonormal, including the constant term; under the stated scaling the constant term is not unit-length, and the proof's relabelling of frequencies relies on that orthonormality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On a uniform grid, DNA sampling needs only DCTs and DSTs at the target resolution, with no padding or domain extension; the effective periodisation scale is doubled relative to periodic boundary conditions, so the covariance error is smaller for the same computational cost.
  • For Matérn fields with $\nu\ge1/2$, the paper's explicit bounds show the covariance error can be driven to zero by choosing the scale parameter $\alpha$ and truncation $n$ together.
  • In the SPDE setting, averaging $2^d$ Dirichlet/Neumann solutions on the original domain removes the need to oversample, which addresses memory and communication bottlenecks in massively parallel simulations.
  • Because the DNA covariance is genuinely isotropic for any $\alpha$, users of SPDE-based samplers no longer need to balance domain-extension size against covariance error; the remaining error is dominated by finite-element discretisation across typical mesh widths.
  • Covariance functions that would force circulant embedding to use extreme padding, such as smooth Matérn, Gaussian, and Cauchy kernels, can be sampled with small error at $\alpha=1$, according to the paper's experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The boundary-cancellation identity is independent of the constant-mode normalisation, so renormalising the constant term in the DCT basis would preserve the averaging idea while changing the exact covariance formula; this is the first repair to test if the identity is to be used as stated.
  • The mechanism suggests a local generalisation: on domains with symmetry or local convexity, averaging only the normal and tangential boundary conditions may restore isotropy, as the disc experiment hints, but non-convex corners will need a different construction.
  • DNA produces a periodised covariance, not the exact target, so it is best suited to high-throughput or Bayesian-inference settings where small covariance bias is acceptable; for applications requiring exact covariances, circulant embedding with adequate padding remains the safer choice.
  • The doubled-scale observation transfers to any existing periodisation-based analysis: a DNA sampler should match the accuracy of a periodic-boundary sampler with half the padding, which could simplify parameter choice in production codes.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new sampling framework, Dirichlet-Neumann Averaging (DNA), which generates isotropic Gaussian random fields on a hypercube by averaging independent fields with homogeneous Dirichlet and homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions on the faces, using tensor-product cosine/sine bases evaluated by DCTs and DSTs. The central claim is Proposition 2.2, asserting that the covariance of the averaged field is the periodization phi^(pi)_{2 alpha,n} of the target isotropic covariance, with no padding and a doubled effective scale. The paper then derives exponential error bounds for Matérn covariances (Lemma 2.3, Lemma 2.4, Proposition 2.5), links the construction to the Whittle-Matérn SPDE in Proposition 2.7, and states in Corollary 2.8 that averaging SPDE solutions with these boundary conditions yields genuinely isotropic fields without domain extension. Numerical experiments compare the DNA covariance error with circulant embedding and with oversampled SPDE sampling, including non-cuboid domains.

Significance. The underlying idea is attractive and, once the technical errors are corrected, could be a genuinely useful alternative to circulant embedding and to oversampling in SPDE-based samplers. The manuscript's strengths are the concrete algorithmic proposal (DCT/DST evaluation with no padding), the explicit non-asymptotic error estimates for Matérn covariances, and the numerical evidence across several kernels and domains. However, the main theoretical results as printed are not correct: the central identity in Proposition 2.2 is invalidated by a normalization error in the basis (2.5), and the SPDE scaling in Proposition 2.7 contains an incorrect power of kappa. Both defects appear mechanical and repairable, but they currently undermine Proposition 2.2, Lemma 2.4, Proposition 2.7, and Corollary 2.8, as well as the claimed interpretation of the numerical experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2.5) and Proposition 2.2] The basis functions e^b_{mu,alpha} in (2.5) are not orthonormal in L2((0,alpha)^d). For mu_j=0, the one-dimensional factor is identically 1, so its L2 norm on (0,alpha) is sqrt(alpha); with the prefactor (2/alpha)^{1/2} its norm becomes sqrt(2), not 1. Consequently every mode with at least one zero component is overweighted by a factor 2^{# {j : mu_j = 0}} relative to an orthonormal basis. Tracing the proof of Proposition 2.2, the covariance of the DNA GRF (2.7) is not the claimed periodization phi^(pi)_{2 alpha,n}. In d=1, the true averaged covariance is alpha^{-1} lambda_{alpha,0} + alpha^{-1} sum_{m=1}^n lambda_{alpha,m} cos(pi alpha^{-1} m (x-y)), whereas the claimed phi^(pi)_{2 alpha,n}(x-y) equals (2 alpha)^{-1} lambda_{alpha,0} + alpha^{-1} sum_{m=1}^n lambda_{alpha,m} cos(...); the zero-frequency term is off by a factor of 2. In d>1, the overweighting depends on which coordinates vanish, so the covariance is not the scalar periodization and is not isotropic. The reindexing in (2.10)-(2.11) is also not a bijection from pairs (mu,q) with mu in N^d_n to Z^d_n, because zero components are counted once per available sign. The same non-orthonormality invalidates the use of (2.11) in the proof of Lemma 2.4 and the orthonormality assumption in equations (2.21)-(2.22) of Proposition 2.7. The issue is repairable by using an index-dependent normalization: 1/sqrt(alpha) for the constant mode and sqrt(2/alpha) for the positive modes in each dimension. The paper should be revised to either adopt this corrected basis or explicitly recompute all covariance identities with the printed basis.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2.19) and Eq. (2.17a)] The exponent of kappa in equation (2.19) is wrong. From the Matérn Fourier transform (1.6) and the identity beta = nu/2 + d/4, a direct calculation gives eta_{mu,alpha}^{-2 beta} = (kappa^2 + pi^2 alpha^{-2} ||mu||_2^2)^{-(nu+d/2)} = C_nu^{-1} kappa^{-2 nu} hat{varphi}((2 alpha)^{-1} mu), not C_nu^{-1} kappa^{+2 nu} hat{varphi}((2 alpha)^{-1} mu). The sign of the kappa exponent is load-bearing because it determines the white-noise scaling in the SPDE (2.17a): to make the coefficients of u^b_alpha in (2.18) equal to sqrt(hat{varphi}((2 alpha)^{-1} mu)), the right-hand side of (2.17a) should be sqrt(C_nu) kappa^{+nu} W, not sqrt(C_nu) kappa^{-nu} W. This affects the proof of Proposition 2.7 through equations (2.20)-(2.23) and any numerical implementation of the SPDE-based DNA variant. The authors should correct the sign and re-derive the SPDE constant consistently.
  3. [Section 3, Figures 3-5 and Table 1] The numerical experiments do not resolve the normalization ambiguity in the manuscript. The paper reports empirical covariances and errors for the DNA method, but it does not state which normalization was used in the DCT/DST implementation. If the implementation used standard orthonormal DCT/DST normalizations, the experiments correspond to the corrected basis rather than to the basis defined in (2.5); if it used the printed normalization, the zero-frequency overweighting should be visible in quantities such as the marginal variance. Either way, the experiments as reported cannot validate Proposition 2.2 as printed. The authors should specify the transform normalization, rerun the experiments with the corrected basis, and, if the printed basis is retained, recompute the theoretical covariance against which the errors are measured.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1, Definition 1.4] The notation in (1.14) should use complex conjugation: the condition should read xi_{-mu} = overline{xi_mu} and mathbb{E} xi_mu overline{xi_eta} = delta_{mu eta}; as written, xi_{-mu} = xi_mu is inconsistent with mathbb{E} xi_mu xi_eta = delta_{mu eta} for eta = -mu.
  2. [Section 2.1, proof of Lemma 2.4] In the proof of Lemma 2.4, the sentence 'analogously to the Proof of Lemma 2.4' should refer to the shell-summation argument in the proof of Lemma 2.3, not to the current lemma.
  3. [Section 1] There is a typo, 'homoegeneous', in the discussion of the basis functions satisfying boundary conditions in Section 1.
  4. [General] The manuscript would benefit from a reproducibility statement describing the DCT/DST normalization, the random number generation, and the software used for the numerical experiments, since the central theoretical claims depend sensitively on the normalization of the basis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the DNA covariance is an explicit spectral construction verified by direct calculation, and self-citations supply only external analytic bounds.

full rationale

Proposition 2.2 is a direct verification of the covariance of the field defined in Definition 2.1: the coefficients sqrt(phi_hat((2 alpha)^-1 mu)) are exactly the Fourier weights of the periodization phi^(pi)_{2 alpha,n}, and the trigonometric identities reduce the averaged covariance to that periodization. No parameter is fitted to data, and no prediction is renamed as an input. The reader's noted non-orthonormality of the basis (2.5) would falsify Proposition 2.2 as a mathematical statement, but that is a correctness defect, not equivalence-by-construction. Proposition 2.7 is presented as a spectral verification that the series (2.18) satisfies the SPDE (2.17); the apparent kappa-exponent flaw in (2.19) is likewise a mathematical error rather than a circular dependency. The self-citations [4], [20], and [21] are used for an external Bessel-function inequality and for CE benchmarks; they do not smuggle in the DNA construction or its covariance claim. The numerical experiments compare Monte Carlo estimates against the defined covariance, so they do not fit the theory. Consequently, no load-bearing step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs.

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

The central construction rests on standard Fourier and stochastic analysis plus a domain assumption restricting to isotropic Matérn covariance. The only invented mathematical object is the DNA GRF itself, which is defined in equation (2.7); it does not postulate any new physical entity. The key hidden assumption is the orthonormality and counting of the basis functions, which fails and breaks the proof.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Poisson summation formula (1.9) and the periodization definition (1.10)-(1.11)
    Used to define and analyze periodized covariance functions in Section 1.2 and in the error estimates of Section 2.
  • standard math Bochner's theorem, used to assert that periodizations of stationary covariance functions are positive definite in Definition 1.3
    Invoked in Section 1.2 to justify positivity of the Fourier coefficients of periodized covariances.
  • domain assumption Matérn covariance spectral density (1.6) and the parameter relation kappa = sqrt(2 nu)/l
    The main error estimates in Lemma 2.3, Lemma 2.4, and Proposition 2.5 are stated only for stationary Matérn covariances with nu >= 1/2; Proposition 2.7 additionally restricts d to {1,2,3}.
  • ad hoc to paper The basis functions e^b_{\mu,\alpha} in (2.5) form an orthonormal eigenbasis of the Laplacian with the prescribed Dirichlet/Neumann boundary conditions
    This is the load-bearing assumption in the proofs of Proposition 2.2 and Proposition 2.7, via (2.8), (2.22), and the reindexing in (2.10)-(2.11). It is false for zero-frequency modes because the constant mode is scaled by (2/alpha)^{d/2} rather than (1/alpha)^{d/2}.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dirichlet-Neumann Averaging: The DNA of Efficient Gaussian Process Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NGCIKSU

@misc{pith2026241207929,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dirichlet-Neumann Averaging: The DNA of Efficient Gaussian Process Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NGCIKSU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07929}
}
read the original abstract

Gaussian processes (GPs) and Gaussian random fields (GRFs) are essential for modelling spatially varying stochastic phenomena. Yet, the efficient generation of corresponding realisations on high-resolution grids remains challenging, particularly when a large number of realisations are required. This paper presents two novel contributions. First, we propose a new methodology based on Dirichlet-Neumann averaging (DNA) to generate GPs and GRFs with isotropic covariance on regularly spaced grids. The combination of discrete cosine and sine transforms in the DNA sampling approach allows for rapid evaluations without the need for modification or padding of the desired covariance function. While this introduces an error in the covariance, our numerical experiments show that this error is negligible for most relevant applications, representing a trade-off between efficiency and precision. We provide explicit error estimates for Mat\'ern covariances. The second contribution links our new methodology to the stochastic partial differential equation (SPDE) approach for sampling GRFs. We demonstrate that the concepts developed in our methodology can also guide the selection of boundary conditions in the SPDE framework. We prove that averaging specific GRFs sampled via the SPDE approach yields genuinely isotropic realisations without domain extension, with the error bounds established in the first part remaining valid.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07929 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three periodisations of the Matérn cov￾ariance function 𝜑 with parameters 𝜈 = 2 and 𝓁 = 2/5, corresponding to the sampling algorithms discussed in Sec￾tion 2. The scaling parameter is 𝛼 = 1. 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 correlation length 0 2 4 6 8 o v erh e a d smoothness = 1.0 = 1.5 = 2.0 = 2.5 = 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heatmaps of target (top left) and empir￾ical covariances for Matérn fields (𝜈 = 2, 𝓁 = 0.15) with 𝑁 = 5 ⋅ 105 realisations. Clockwise from top right: homogeneous Neumann, homogeneous Dirichlet, peri￾odic boundary conditions. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 location x 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 s a m ple m argin al v aria n c e 2 (x) Neumann Dirichlet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Empirical marginal variances for the 2 𝑑 = 4 combinations of boundary conditions used for DNA sampling, along with the resulting empirical marginal variance of the DNA GRF. Parameters for the Matérn covariance: 𝜈 = 1.5, 𝓁 = 0.2; estimated from 𝑁 = 104 realisations on a 150 × 150 grid. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Monte-Carlo estimates of the maximal covariance error along the diagonal of the target domain 𝐷 = (0, 1)2 , based on 𝑁 = 2 ⋅ 106 realisations. Parameters for the SPDE are 𝜈 = 1.0 and 𝓁 = 0.25. We compare the DNA sampling approach from Section 2 with the classical SPDE …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Marginal variance of GRFs with Matérn covariance (𝜈 = 1, 𝓁 = 0.2) for different boundary conditions (BCs), computed via the SPDE approach (105 realizations). Top rows: homogeneous Dirichlet and Neumann BCs; bottom: averaged GRFs. GRF shows constant marginal variance, i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Multilevel Stochastic Gradient Descent for Optimal Control Under Uncertainty

    math.OC 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A multilevel Monte Carlo gradient estimator inside stochastic gradient descent yields linear convergence claims and large speedups for PDE-constrained optimal control under uncertainty.

  2. A Budgeted Multi-Level Monte Carlo Method for Full Field Estimates of Multi-PDE Problems

    math.NA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A memory-constrained multi-level Monte Carlo method computes full-field PDE statistics with memory and CPU overhead comparable to a single scalar estimator, demonstrated on a coupled SPDE-Darcy-transport problem.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Robert J. Adler. The Geometry of Random Fields. SIAM, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    ‘On some Inequalities for the Incomplete Gamma Function’

    Horst Alzer. ‘On some Inequalities for the Incomplete Gamma Function’. In: Mathematics of Computation 66.218 (1997), pp. 771–778

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    ‘Representations of Gaussian Random Fields and Approximation of Elliptic PDEs with Lognormal Coefficients’

    Markus Bachmayr, Albert Cohen and Giovanni Migliorati. ‘Representations of Gaussian Random Fields and Approximation of Elliptic PDEs with Lognormal Coefficients’. In: Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications 24 (2018), pp. 621–649

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Graham, Van Kien Nguyen and Robert Scheichl

    Markus Bachmayr, Ivan G. Graham, Van Kien Nguyen and Robert Scheichl. ‘Unified Analysis of Periodization-Based Sampling Methods for Matérn Covariances’. In: SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 58.5 (2020), pp. 2953–2980

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    ‘The Effect of Malaria Control on Plasmodium Falciparum in Africa between 2000 and 2015’

    Samir Bhatt et al. ‘The Effect of Malaria Control on Plasmodium Falciparum in Africa between 2000 and 2015’. In: Nature 526.7572 (2015), pp. 207–211

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Vorlesungen über Fouriersche Integrale

    Salomon Bochner. Vorlesungen über Fouriersche Integrale. Leipzig, 1932

    work page 1932

  7. [7]

    ‘The Rational SPDE Approach for Gaussian Random Fields with General Smoothness’

    David Bolin and Kristin Kirchner. ‘The Rational SPDE Approach for Gaussian Random Fields with General Smoothness’. In: Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 29.2 (2020), pp. 274–285. 26

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    ‘Numerical Solution of Fractional Elliptic Stochastic PDEs with Spatial White Noise’

    David Bolin, Kristin Kirchner and Mihály Kovács. ‘Numerical Solution of Fractional Elliptic Stochastic PDEs with Spatial White Noise’. In: IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis 40.2 (2020), pp. 1051–1073

    work page 2020

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Cliffe, Mike B

    Andrew K. Cliffe, Mike B. Giles, Robert Scheichl and Aretha L. Teckentrup. ‘Multilevel Monte Carlo Methods and Applications to Elliptic PDEs with Random Coefficients’. In: Computing and Visualization in Science 14 (2011), pp. 3–15

    2011

  2. [10]

    S. L. Cotter, G. O. Roberts, A. M. Stuart and D. White. ‘MCMC Methods for Functions: Modifying Old Algorithms to Make Them Faster’. In:Statistical Science 28.3 (2013), pp. 424– 446

    2013

  3. [11]

    Cox and Kristin Kirchner

    Sonja G. Cox and Kristin Kirchner. ‘Regularity and Convergence Analysis in Sobolev and Hölder Spaces for Generalized Whittle–Matérn Fields’. In: Numerische Mathematik 146.4 (2020), pp. 819–873

    2020

  4. [12]

    Giles, Marie E

    Matteo Croci, Michael B. Giles, Marie E. Rognes and Patrick E. Farrell. ‘Efficient White Noise Sampling and Coupling for Multilevel Monte Carlo with Nonnested Meshes’. In: SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 6.4 (2018), pp. 1630–1655

    2018

  5. [13]

    Dietrich and Garry N

    Claude R. Dietrich and Garry N. Newsam. ‘Fast and Exact Simulation of Stationary Gaussian Processes through Circulant Embedding of the Covariance Matrix’. In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 18.4 (1997), pp. 1088–1107

    1997

  6. [14]

    Rüde, Robert Scheichl and Barbara Wohlmuth

    Daniel Drzisga, Björn Gmeiner, U. Rüde, Robert Scheichl and Barbara Wohlmuth. ‘Schedul- ing Massively Parallel Multigrid for Multilevel Monte Carlo Methods’. In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 39.5 (2017), S873–S897

    2017

  7. [15]

    Lawrence C. Evans. Partial Differential Equations. Vol. 19. American Mathematical Soc., 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    Kuo and Ian H

    Michael Feischl, Frances Y. Kuo and Ian H. Sloan. ‘Fast Random Field Generation with H-Matrices’. In: Numerische Mathematik 140 (2018), pp. 639–676

    2018

  9. [17]

    Gelfand and Naum Y

    Israel M. Gelfand and Naum Y. Vilenkin. Generalized Functions, Volume 4: Applications of Harmonic Analysis. Trans. by Amiel Feinstein. Vol. 380. AMS Chelsea Publishing, 1964

    1964

  10. [18]

    ‘Simple Tests for the Validity of Correlation Function Models on the Circle’

    Tilmann Gneiting. ‘Simple Tests for the Validity of Correlation Function Models on the Circle’. In: Statistics & probability letters 39.2 (1998), pp. 119–122

    1998

  11. [19]

    Percival, Martin Schlather and Yindeng Jiang

    Tilmann Gneiting, Hana Ševčíková, Donald B. Percival, Martin Schlather and Yindeng Jiang. ‘Fast and Exact Simulation of Large Gaussian Lattice Systems in ℝ2: Exploring the Limits’. In: Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15.3 (2006), pp. 483–501

    2006

  12. [20]

    Graham, Frances Y

    Ivan G. Graham, Frances Y. Kuo, Dirk Nuyens, Rob Scheichl and Ian H. Sloan. ‘Circu- lant Embedding with QMC: Analysis for Elliptic PDE with Lognormal Coefficients’. In: Numerische Mathematik 140 (2018), pp. 479–511

    2018

  13. [21]

    Graham, Frances Y

    Ivan G. Graham, Frances Y. Kuo, Dirk Nuyens, Robert Scheichl and Ian H. Sloan. ‘Analysis of Circulant Embedding Methods for Sampling Stationary Random Fields’. In:SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 56.3 (2018), pp. 1871–1895

    2018

  14. [22]

    Griffiths, Jinsong Huang and Gordon A

    DV. Griffiths, Jinsong Huang and Gordon A. Fenton. ‘Influence of Spatial Variability on Slope Reliability using 2-D Random Fields’. In:Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering 135.10 (2009), pp. 1367–1378

    2009

  15. [23]

    ‘On the Low-Rank Approxim- ation by the Pivoted Cholesky Decomposition’

    Helmut Harbrecht, Michael Peters and Reinhold Schneider. ‘On the Low-Rank Approxim- ation by the Pivoted Cholesky Decomposition’. In: Applied Numerical Mathematics 62.4 (2012), pp. 428–440. 27

    2012

  16. [24]

    Khoromskij, Alexander Litvinenko and Hermann G

    Boris N. Khoromskij, Alexander Litvinenko and Hermann G. Matthies. ‘Application of Hierarchical Matrices for Computing the Karhunen–Loeve Expansion’. In: Computing 84.1 (2009), pp. 49–67

    2009

  17. [25]

    ‘Analysis of Boundary Effects on PDE-Based Sampling of Whittle–Matérn Random Fields’

    Ustim Khristenko, Laura Scarabosio, Piotr Swierczynski, Elisabeth Ullmann and Barbara Wohlmuth. ‘Analysis of Boundary Effects on PDE-Based Sampling of Whittle–Matérn Random Fields’. In: SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification7.3 (2019), pp. 948–974

    2019

  18. [26]

    ‘Fast Sampling of Parameterised Gaussian Random Fields’

    Jonas Latz, Marvin Eisenberger and Elisabeth Ullmann. ‘Fast Sampling of Parameterised Gaussian Random Fields’. In: Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 348 (2019), pp. 978–1012

    2019

  19. [27]

    ‘An Explicit Link between Gaussian Fields and Gaussian Markov Random Fields: the Stochastic Partial Differential Equation Approach’

    Finn Lindgren, Håvard Rue and Johan Lindström. ‘An Explicit Link between Gaussian Fields and Gaussian Markov Random Fields: the Stochastic Partial Differential Equation Approach’. In: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 73.4 (2011), pp. 423–498

    2011

  20. [28]

    Lord, Catherine E

    Gabriel J. Lord, Catherine E. Powell and Tony Shardlow. An Introduction to Computational Stochastic PDEs. Vol. 50. Cambridge University Press, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    Ho and Lexing Ying

    Victor Minden, Anil Damle, Kenneth L. Ho and Lexing Ying. ‘Fast Spatial Gaussian Pro- cess Maximum Likelihood Estimation via Skeletonization Factorizations’. In: Multiscale Modeling & Simulation 15.4 (2017), pp. 1584–1611

    2017

  22. [30]

    ‘Fast and Exact Simulation of Univariate and Bivariate Gaussian Random Fields’

    Olga Moreva and Martin Schlather. ‘Fast and Exact Simulation of Univariate and Bivariate Gaussian Random Fields’. In: Stat 7.1 (2018), e188

    2018

  23. [31]

    Bayesian Non-Linear Statistical Inverse Problems

    Richard Nickl. Bayesian Non-Linear Statistical Inverse Problems. EMS press, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Introduction to Malliavin Calculus

    David Nualart and Eulalia Nualart. Introduction to Malliavin Calculus. Vol. 9. Cambridge University Press, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Huttunen and Sari Lasanen

    Lassi Roininen, Janne MJ. Huttunen and Sari Lasanen. ‘Whittle-Matérn Priors for Bayesian Statistical Inversion with Applications in Electrical Impedance Tomography’. In: Inverse Problems & Imaging 8.2 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    ‘Karhunen–Loève Approximation of Ran- dom Fields by Generalized Fast Multipole Methods’

    Christoph Schwab and Radu Alexandru Todor. ‘Karhunen–Loève Approximation of Ran- dom Fields by Generalized Fast Multipole Methods’. In: Journal of Computational Physics 217.1 (2006), pp. 100–122

    2006

  27. [35]

    Sørbye and Havard Rue

    Daniel Simpson, Janine Baerbel Illian, Finn Lindgren, Sigrunn H. Sørbye and Havard Rue. ‘Going Off Grid: Computationally Efficient Inference for Log-Gaussian Cox Processes’. In: Biometrika 103.1 (2016), pp. 49–70

    2016

  28. [36]

    Introduction to Fourier analysis on Euclidean spaces

    Elias M Stein and Guido Weiss. Introduction to Fourier analysis on Euclidean spaces. Vol. 1. Princeton university press, 1971

    1971

  29. [37]

    Illian and Ben Swallow

    Stephen Jun Villejo, Janine B. Illian and Ben Swallow. ‘Data Fusion in a Two-Stage Spatio- Temporal Model using the INLA-SPDE Approach’. In: Spatial Statistics 54 (2023), p. 100744. issn: 2211-6753

    2023

  30. [38]

    ‘On Stationary Processes in the Plane’

    Peter Whittle. ‘On Stationary Processes in the Plane’. In: Biometrika (1954), pp. 434–449

    1954

  31. [39]

    ‘Stochastic-Processes in Several Dimensions’

    Peter Whittle. ‘Stochastic-Processes in Several Dimensions’. In:Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute 40.2 (1963), pp. 974–994

    1963

  32. [40]

    Williams and David Barber

    Christopher KI. Williams and David Barber. ‘Bayesian Classification with Gaussian Pro- cesses’. In: IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 20.12 (1998), pp. 1342–1351. 28

    1998

  33. [41]

    ‘When is a truncated covariance function on the line a covariance function on the circle?’ In: Statistics & probability letters 24.2 (1995), pp

    Andrew TA Wood. ‘When is a truncated covariance function on the line a covariance function on the circle?’ In: Statistics & probability letters 24.2 (1995), pp. 157–164

    1995

  34. [42]

    Wood and Grace Chan

    Andrew TA. Wood and Grace Chan. ‘Simulation of Stationary Gaussian Processes in[0,1]𝑑’. In: Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 3.4 (1994), pp. 409–432. A. Auxiliary Results Lemma A.1. Let𝜑 be a stationary covariance function from the Matérn family with correlati...

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.