Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Robust and Conjugate Spatio-Temporal Gaussian Processes

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that robust-and-conjugate Gaussian process regression can be run as a state-space filter, giving outlier-resistant spatio-temporal GP predictions at linear-in-time cost.

desk verdict Useful and practical state-space extension of RCGP, but the proof of the headline robustness guarantee ignores the adaptivity of the weights and needs to be fixed before I trust the claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02450 v2 pith:ESZR3T4Q submitted 2025-02-04 stat.CO stat.MEstat.ML

William Laplante , Matias Altamirano , Andrew Duncan , Jeremias Knoblauch , François-Xavier Briol This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.COstat.MEstat.ML MSC 60G1562F3562M10
keywords spatio-temporalGaussianprocessesgeneralizedBayesstate-spacemodelsKalmanfilteringoutlierrobustnessinversemulti-quadricweightsposteriorinfluencefunctionrobusthyperparameteroptimization
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 tries to establish that the robust-and-conjugate Gaussian process (RCGP), previously a batch method with cubic cost and fragile hyperparameters, can be rewritten as a state-space filter that keeps Gaussian posteriors and linear-in-time computation while resisting outliers. The key move is to let the robustness weight's center and width be the mean and variance of the one-step predictive distribution, so the method adapts itself as it filters and does not need a hand-picked outlier proportion or a well-chosen prior mean. The authors prove that under inverse multi-quadric weights a single corrupted observation has bounded posterior influence, and they replace standard likelihood-based hyperparameter fitting with a weighted objective so outliers do not distort the kernel and noise estimates. They demonstrate the method on financial crash data and UK temperature forecasts, where it matches expensive robust alternatives in accuracy at a fraction of their cost.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the inverse multi-quadric weight function $w_{\mathrm{IMQ}}(x,y)=\beta(1+(y-\gamma(x))^2/c(x)^2)^{-1/2}$ inside the weighted score-matching loss; it is a bump centered at $\gamma(x)$ that decays like $1/|y|$ as $y$ moves away, and its squared tail decay is exactly what makes the posterior influence function finite. Writing that loss into a state-space GP keeps the update quadratic in the latent state, so the filtering posterior remains Gaussian and the Kalman predict-update recursions carry the computation. The adaptivity of the weights, with $\gamma$ and $c^2$ read off the one-step predictive distribution, is what distinguishes ST-RCGP from vanilla RCGP and what makes the hyperparameters self-tuning.

What would settle it

Simulate a temporal GP with one outlier of growing magnitude planted at an early time step, and compute the KL divergence between the ST-RCGP filtering posterior and the posterior obtained when that observation is removed; if the divergence increases without bound as the outlier magnitude grows, the adaptive version of Proposition 3.3 is false. A sharper check is to compute $\sup_{y^c}|\mathrm{PIF}(y^c,D)|$ numerically for the fully adaptive weights rather than for weights fixed at their clean-data values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Proposition 3.3: when the weight function is $w_{\mathrm{IMQ}}(x,y)=\beta(1+(y-\gamma(x))^2/c(x)^2)^{-1/2}$ with $\beta=\sigma/\sqrt{2}$, $\gamma(x_k)=\hat{f}_k$ (the filtering predictive mean), and $c^2(x_k)=\mathrm{diag}(\hat{S}_k)$ (the filtering predictive variance), the posterior influence function is bounded for any single contaminated observation, so the posterior cannot be pulled without limit by one extreme outlier. The paper further claims this robustness comes at no loss of conjugacy or speed: Proposition 3.1 shows the generalized-Bayes posterior stays Gaussian and is updated by Kalman filtering and smoothing, so the method inherits the linear-in-time cost of spatio-temporal GPs, and Proposition 3.2 shows that the non-adaptive special case reproduces the original RCGP exactly. On the algorithmic side, the adaptive centering and shrinking functions remove the RCGP's sensitivity to the prior mean and eliminate the need to preselect a shrinking constant.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the bounded-influence proof, which treats the robust weight function as fixed while one observation is corrupted, still describes the algorithm in which that weight function is recomputed from the data, including the corrupted observation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The posterior at each filtering step is Gaussian, so predictions, smoothing, and uncertainty intervals are available in closed form at the same order of cost as a plain spatio-temporal GP.
  • A single observation contaminated to an arbitrarily large value cannot drive the predictive mean or variance without bound, in the fixed-weight setting for which the proof is written.
  • The robust weighted objective $\varphi_{\mathrm{GB}}(\theta)$ prevents kernel lengthscales, amplitudes, and noise levels from being fitted to outliers, closing a failure mode of leave-one-out hyperparameter selection.
  • In well-specified data without outliers the weight ratio stays near one, so ST-RCGP recovers ordinary spatio-temporal GP behavior rather than sacrificing efficiency for robustness.
  • On financial crash data and temperature forecasting with clustered outliers, ST-RCGP's RMSE and NLPD are comparable to Student-$t$ sequential filters while its wall-clock time stays close to that of a plain state-space GP.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A full proof of bounded influence for the fully adaptive filter would need to control how much the data-dependent $\gamma_k$ and $c_k$ move when an early observation is corrupted; the paper's Proposition 3.3 holds those weights fixed, so closing that gap is a natural next step.
  • The same adaptive-centering scheme could be used with other weight families that decay at least as fast as an inverse multi-quadric, and the robustness condition would still suggest which decay rates preserve bounded influence.
  • Because the filter already produces one-step predictive means and variances, the weight assigned to each incoming point is a ready-made online outlier score, which could be exported to monitoring and anomaly-detection systems.
  • The exactness of the filter relative to approximate Student-$t$ methods suggests that the main remaining bottleneck is spatial dimension, where variational or inducing-point approximations would be the natural extension.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ST-RCGP, a state-space formulation of robust and conjugate Gaussian process regression (RCGP) that scales linearly in the number of temporal observations while remaining conjugate. The method adapts the inverse-multi-quadric weight function of RCGPs by centering it at the filtering predictive mean and setting its shrinking scale to the filtering predictive variance, which the authors argue resolves three known weaknesses of batch RCGPs: sensitivity to a poorly chosen prior mean, poor uncertainty quantification, and difficult hyperparameter selection. The paper's central theoretical claim, Proposition 3.3, is that the posterior influence function (PIF) of ST-RCGP is bounded, so that any single arbitrarily large outlier has bounded influence on the posterior. The paper also proposes a weighted hyperparameter optimization objective and reports experiments on simulated data, financial flash-crash data, and UK temperature forecasting, alongside reproducible code.

Significance. If the bounded-PIF claim were established for the fully adaptive algorithm, ST-RCGP would be a substantive contribution: it would combine the linear-in-time cost of state-space GPs with provable robustness to outliers, while removing the main practical tuning issues of batch RCGPs. The empirical study is broad and the code is provided, which are concrete strengths. The state-space derivation in Proposition 3.1 is sound, and Proposition 3.2 cleanly characterizes when adaptive filtering/smoothing reduces to batch RCGP. However, the main theoretical guarantee currently rests on a proof that does not analyze the adaptivity of the weights, and the empirical results do not compensate for that gap in a paper whose headline contribution is the robustness guarantee.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B.3 / Proposition 3.3] The proof of Proposition 3.3 verifies the fixed-weight sufficient condition of Proposition B.2, namely sup_y |y| w(x,y)^2 < infinity for fixed gamma(x) and c(x), but it does not bound the dependence of the adaptive weights on the contaminated observation. In the ST-RCGP algorithm, gamma_k = \hat f_k and c_k^2 = diag(\hat S_k) are the filtering predictive mean and variance (Section 3), and for every k > m these quantities are functions of a contaminated observation y^c_{m,j} through the Kalman recursion in Eqs. (5)-(6). Proposition 3.2 establishes equality with batch RCGP only for non-adaptive weights, and Section 3 explicitly states that adaptivity is what makes filtering and smoothing distributions differ. Consequently, Proposition B.2 does not apply to the adaptive posterior: the PIF also receives a contribution from the change in J_{w_k} and \nabla \log w_k^2 induced by the change in gamma_k and c_k, and the proof contains no term controlling this contribution. The bounded-PIF conclusion for the algorithm actually implemented and claimed in Proposition 3.3 is therefore unsupported.
  2. [Appendix B.3, Eq. (25)] The proof of Proposition 3.3 sets beta = sigma^2/2, while the main text and the statement of Proposition 3.3 set beta = sigma/sqrt(2). This is more than a typo: the constants appearing in the PIF bound of Proposition B.2 depend on beta, and the proof must be carried out for the parameter value used in the algorithm. The discrepancy should be reconciled, and if the proof is meant for a different parameter setting, the proposition statement must be adjusted.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, phi_GB and Appendix C.3] The paper presents the removal of hand-picked hyperparameters as a contribution (Issues #1-#3), but the robust hyperparameter objective phi_GB introduces a new quantile parameter delta, set to delta = 0.05 in Appendix C.3 without discussion of its sensitivity. The text should either discuss the choice of delta or provide a sensitivity analysis.
  2. [Figure 16] The legend in Figure 16 spells 'ST-RTGP', which appears to be a typo for 'ST-RCGP'.
  3. [Notation throughout] The superscripts and subscripts for the generalized Bayes posterior mean and covariance are used inconsistently: Proposition 3.1 writes m^GB_{k|k} and P^GB_{k|k}, while Appendix B.1 and parts of the derivation drop the superscript. Unifying this notation would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: ST-RCGP's core construction is self-contained; the main robustness guarantee has a non-circular proof gap when adaptive weights are used.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. Proposition 3.1 obtains the Kalman-style generalized filtering updates by completing the square in the weighted score-matching loss (Appendix B.1), so the sequential algorithm is derived from the loss rather than taken as an input. Proposition 3.2's equivalence between ST-RCGP and vanilla RCGP is proved by induction for non-adaptive weights, with explicit assumptions (identical prior, summable loss, Gauss-Markov prior); it is not assumed by construction. The adaptive choices gamma_k = f_hat_k and c^2_k = diag(S_hat_k) are defined from the filtering predictive, which is a data-dependent specification, not a fitted parameter later relabeled as a prediction. The robustness statement (Prop 3.3) relies on Proposition B.2 from Altamirano et al. (2024), an overlapping-author citation; however, that cited PIF bound is a general parameter-free result with explicit conditions and is used as a building block, so the self-citation is not circular in itself. The genuinely weak point is in Appendix B.3: the proof asserts that ST-RCGP and RCGP share the same distribution, whereas the paper itself states that adaptivity makes filtering/smoothing differ from batch RCGP, and the fixed-weight bound is therefore applied to an algorithm with data-dependent gamma and c. This is a correctness/assumption gap, not a reduction-by-definition, and it does not make the derivation circular. Experiments are benchmarked against external methods (STGP, BayesNewton MEP/MVI/MLa, relevance pursuit) on held-out metrics, so the empirical claims are externally grounded. Overall score 2 reflects the minor load-bearing reliance on the authors' prior RCGP robustness result, without constituting circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no radically new entities; it combines existing components (state-space GPs, IMQ weights, generalized Bayes) with a new adaptive rule for setting the weight hyperparameters and a robust hyperparameter objective. The main unproven item is the robustness claim for the adaptive weights.

free parameters (1)
  • δ (quantile for φ_GB) = 0.05
    Chosen by hand in Appendix C.3 for the spatio-temporal robust hyperparameter objective.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The spatio-temporal GP prior is a Gauss-Markov process representable as a finite-dimensional state-space model.
    Required for the Kalman filter/smoother; limits the class of kernels (Section 2, Equation 4).
  • ad hoc to paper The weighted score-matching divergence is an appropriate loss for generalized Bayesian regression.
    Adopted from Altamirano et al. (2024); the choice is motivated but not derived from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper The adaptive IMQ weight with γ = predictive mean and c² = predictive variance yields a bounded PIF.
    Proposition 3.3 claims this, but the proof in Appendix B.3 only handles fixed weights, not the data-dependent adaptation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust and Conjugate Spatio-Temporal Gaussian Processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ESZR3T4Q

@misc{pith2026250202450,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust and Conjugate Spatio-Temporal Gaussian Processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ESZR3T4Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02450}
}
read the original abstract

State-space formulations allow for Gaussian process (GP) regression with linear-in-time computational cost in spatio-temporal settings, but performance typically suffers in the presence of outliers. In this paper, we adapt and specialise the robust and conjugate GP (RCGP) framework of Altamirano et al. (2024) to the spatio-temporal setting. In doing so, we obtain an outlier-robust spatio-temporal GP with a computational cost comparable to classical spatio-temporal GPs. We also overcome the three main drawbacks of RCGPs: their unreliable performance when the prior mean is chosen poorly, their lack of reliable uncertainty quantification, and the need to carefully select a hyperparameter by hand. We study our method extensively in finance and weather forecasting applications, demonstrating that it provides a reliable approach to spatio-temporal modelling in the presence of outliers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02450 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spatio-temporal GPs in the presence of outliers. The top row shows the observed data as a function of spatial covariates s ∈ R 2 . Outliers are highlighted in red and are uniformly distributed on [−8, −6] ∪ [6, 8]. The second row gives the fit of a regular STGP, whilst the third row gives our proposed ST-RCGP fit. The last row shows the true latent function f(s1, s2, t) = sin(2πt)s 2 1+ cos(2πt)s 2 2. Further detail… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Behaviour of y 7→ wIMQ(xk, y) as we vary c, β, and γ. We emphasize |yk − γ(xk)| and wIMQ(xk, yk) with datum yk. Generalised Bayes for GP Regression Conjugate GPs and STGPs rely on the fragile assumption that ϵ1, . . . , ϵN are Gaussian. While non-Gaussian likelihoods can address this, they also break conjugacy—and thus require expensive and potentially inaccurate approximations. Fortunately, gen￾eralised Bayes (GB) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Failure Modes with Existings RCGPs. We generated N = 80 data points from the true function f(x) = 3 sin(2πx) using N (0, 0.5) additive noise, then corrupted ϵ = 10% of observations around x = 0.76. The leftmost figure shows that RCGP’s posterior mean is strongly affected by the choice of prior mean, highlighting Issue #1. In the two middle plots, we demonstrate that the recommended c = QN (1 − ϵ) = 3.7 (from Altamir… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated Temporal Data With Focussed Outliers. Left: N = 200 points are generated from a GP with Matern kernel ( ´ ν = 3/2), and contaminated with 5% outliers. RCGP uses γ(x) = m(x) = 1 N PN i=1 yi and c = QN (0.95). While predictions are made on data with outliers, w…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparing Estimates of DJIA Index During Twitter Flash Crash Incident. RCGP uses a prior mean of the data over the two days. We notice a dip in the posterior predictive of RCGP when the prior mean aligns with the crash event (red), whereas ST-RCGP and relevance pursuit…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temperature fit across the UK between September and December 2023. Focussed outliers appear in November and are shown as red crosses. We forecast the month of December. September is the last month included in parameter optimisation. We include September to show perform…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: RCGP Parameter Optimisation With and Without Outliers. The fit with outliers yields a kernel lengthscale of 0.19, a kernel amplitude of 0.99, and variance of 0.026. The fit without outliers yields a kernel lengthscale of 1.46, a kernel amplitude of 36.9, and variance o…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Impact of outliers on hyperparameter optimisation with φ. The data is generated in the same way as for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Impact of objective function on ST-RCGP’s hyperparameter optimisation. The data is generated in the same way as for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: ST-RCGP Fits Using The Objective Functions φGB and φ. C.4. Synthetic Spatio-temporal Problem in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Impact of c and β on the posterior. We keep all parameters other than β, c identical and choose mk = ˆfk. Outliers are highlighted in red. When β increases (or decreases), the rate at which we learn from data increases (or decreases), and the confidence intervals narr…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Well-log data. The top and bottom panels show the STGP and ST-RCGP fits to the data, respectively. C.10. Effect of Outlier Timing on ST-RCGP Posterior We investigate the impact of changing the point in time at which outliers are introduced on the posterior of the ST-R…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Impact on ST-RCGP fit when varying the IMQ exponent. The red-shaded plots indicate values of α that violate the robustness condition, i.e. α > −1/4. The figures are denoted by |α|, so that, for example, the top-right panel corresponds to α = −1/32. Outliers are highli…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: ST-RCGP and RCGP comparison. We contrast the two algorithms as we progressively change the specification of the weight function. The CI corresponds to the 3σ confidence interval. The prior is the constant function used in the weight function of the RCGP and the ST-RCG…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Impact of outlier timing on ST-RCGP Posterior. used more to study convergence). In contrast to RCGP, the ST-RCGP is both training and predicting on contaminated data. Coverage The coverage values are computed given a prediction µ and standard deviation σ. For each qua…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Fitting the STGP, ST-RCGP and some methods from the BayesNewton package to the Index futures data with a synthetically induced crash. C.15. Experiments with Temperature Forecasting from Section 4 The data is from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) and is available at htt…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: STGP and ST-RCGP Coverage during the month of October. 31 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Predictively Oriented Posteriors

    stat.ME 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new posterior family scores the posterior predictive directly, giving slower concentration but better predictive performance under model misspecification.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    Spatio-temporal G aussian process models for extended and group object tracking with irregular shapes

    Aftab, W., Hostettler, R., De Freitas, A., Arvaneh, M., and Mihaylova, L. Spatio-temporal G aussian process models for extended and group object tracking with irregular shapes. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 68 0 (3): 0 2137--2151, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Robust and scalable B ayesian online changepoint detection

    Altamirano, M., Briol, F.-X., and Knoblauch, J. Robust and scalable B ayesian online changepoint detection. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 642--663. PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Robust and conjugate G aussian process regression

    Altamirano, M., Briol, F.-X., and Knoblauch, J. Robust and conjugate G aussian process regression. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 1155--1185. PMLR, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Robust G aussian processes via relevance pursuit

    Ament, S., Santorella, E., Eriksson, D., Letham, B., Balandat, M., and Bakshy, E. Robust G aussian processes via relevance pursuit. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (to appear), 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Minimum S tein discrepancy estimators

    Barp, A., Briol, F.-X., Duncan, A., Girolami, M., and Mackey, L. Minimum S tein discrepancy estimators. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Bauer, M., Van der Wilk, M., and Rasmussen, C. E. Understanding probabilistic sparse G aussian process approximations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 29, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    G., Holmes, C

    Bissiri, P. G., Holmes, C. C., and Walker, S. G. A general framework for updating belief distributions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 78 0 (5): 0 1103--1130, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Online time series anomaly detection with state space gaussian processes

    Bock, C., Aubet, F.-X., Gasthaus, J., Kan, A., Chen, M., and Callot, L. Online time series anomaly detection with state space gaussian processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.06763, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Y., Barp, A., Briol, F.-X., Gorham, J., Girolami, M., Mackey, L., and Oates, C

    Chen, W. Y., Barp, A., Briol, F.-X., Gorham, J., Girolami, M., Mackey, L., and Oates, C. Stein point markov chain monte carlo. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 1011--1021. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Dewaskar, M., Tosh, C., Knoblauch, J., and Dunson, D. B. Robustifying likelihoods by optimistically re-weighting data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10525, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    W., and Cristianini, N

    Drineas, P., Mahoney, M. W., and Cristianini, N. On the N ystr \"o m method for approximating a gram matrix for improved kernel-based learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6 0 (12), 2005

    2005

  5. [13]

    Dupuis, D. J. and Morgenthaler, S. Robust weighted likelihood estimators with an application to bivariate extreme value problems. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 30 0 (1): 0 17--36, 2002

    2002

  6. [14]

    Duran-Martin, G., Altamirano, M., Shestopaloff, A., S\' a nchez-Betancourt, L., Knoblauch, J., Jones, M., Briol, F.-X., and Murphy, K. P. Outlier-robust K alman filtering through generalised B ayes. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 12138--12171. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Automatic model construction with G aussian processes

    Duvenaud, D. Automatic model construction with G aussian processes . PhD thesis, Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    and Smith, B

    Field, C. and Smith, B. Robust estimation: A weighted maximum likelihood approach. International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique, pp.\ 405--424, 1994

    1994

  9. [17]

    C., Lobo, V

    Fonseca, T. C., Lobo, V. G., and Schmidt, A. M. Dynamical non- G aussian modelling of spatial processes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics, 72 0 (1): 0 76--103, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Bayesian optimization

    Garnett, R. Bayesian optimization. Cambridge University Press, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    and Basu, A

    Ghosh, A. and Basu, A. Robust Bayes estimation using the density power divergence . Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 68 0 (2): 0 413--437, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Golub, G. H. and Van Loan, C. F. Matrix computations. JHU press, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    Spatio-temporal variational gaussian processes

    Hamelijnck, O., Wilkinson, W., Loppi, N., Solin, A., and Damoulas, T. Spatio-temporal variational gaussian processes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 0 23621--23633, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    J., Jones, P., and Lister, D

    Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P., and Lister, D. Version 4 of the cru ts monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Scientific data, 7 0 (1): 0 109, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    and S \"a rkk \"a , S

    Hartikainen, J. and S \"a rkk \"a , S. K alman filtering and smoothing solutions to temporal G aussian process regression models. In IEEE International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing, pp.\ 379--384, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    a ki, J., and S \

    Hartikainen, J., Riihim \"a ki, J., and S \"a rkk \"a , S. Sparse spatio-temporal G aussian processes with general likelihoods. In Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning, pp.\ 193--200. Springer, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    J., Katzfuss, M., Ramachandar, S., Pedings, K., Gilleland, E., Mannshardt-Shamseldin, E., and Smith, R

    Heaton, M. J., Katzfuss, M., Ramachandar, S., Pedings, K., Gilleland, E., Mannshardt-Shamseldin, E., and Smith, R. L. Spatio-temporal models for large-scale indicators of extreme weather. Environmetrics, 22 0 (3): 0 294--303, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    Hensman, J., Fusi, N., and Lawrence, N. D. Gaussian processes for big data. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp.\ 282, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Huber, P. J. Robust statistics. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics, 1981

    1981

  20. [28]

    W., Li, Y., Huang, C., Styner, M., Lin, W., Zhu, H., Initiative, A

    Hyun, J. W., Li, Y., Huang, C., Styner, M., Lin, W., Zhu, H., Initiative, A. D. N., et al. Stgp: Spatio-temporal G aussian process models for longitudinal neuroimaging data. Neuroimage, 134: 0 550--562, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Estimation of non-normalized statistical models by score matching

    Hyv \"a rinen, A. Estimation of non-normalized statistical models by score matching. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6 0 (24): 0 695--709, 2005

    2005

  22. [30]

    Q., and Holmes, C

    Jewson, J., Smith, J. Q., and Holmes, C. Principles of B ayesian inference using general divergence criteria. Entropy, 20 0 (6): 0 442, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Kalman, R. E. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Transactions of the ASME--Journal of Basic Engineering, 82 0 (Series D): 0 35--45, 1960

    1960

  24. [32]

    Composite goodness-of-fit tests with kernels

    Key, O., Fernandez, T., Gretton, A., and Briol, F.-X. Composite goodness-of-fit tests with kernels . In NeurIPS 2021 Workshop Your Model Is Wrong: Robustness and Misspecification in Probabilistic Modeling, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    An optimization-centric view on B ayes' rule: Reviewing and generalizing variational inference

    Knoblauch, J., Jewson, J., and Damoulas, T. An optimization-centric view on B ayes' rule: Reviewing and generalizing variational inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23 0 (132): 0 1--109, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Krige, D. G. A statistical approach to some basic mine valuation problems on the W itwatersrand. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 52 0 (6): 0 119--139, 1951

    1951

  27. [35]

    and Witmer, F

    Kupilik, M. and Witmer, F. Spatio-temporal violent event prediction using G aussian process regression. Journal of Computational Social Science, 1 0 (2): 0 437--451, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    and Briol, F.-X

    Liu, X. and Briol, F.-X. On the robustness of kernel goodness-of-fit tests . arXiv:2408.05854, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Interpretation and generalization of score matching

    Lyu, S. Interpretation and generalization of score matching. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI '09, pp.\ 359–366, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 2009. AUAI Press. ISBN 9780974903958

    2009

  30. [38]

    Matsubara, T., Knoblauch, J., Briol, F.-X., and Oates, C. J. Robust generalised B ayesian inference for intractable likelihoods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 84 0 (3): 0 997--1022, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Matsubara, T., Knoblauch, J., Briol, F.-X., and Oates, C. J. Generalized bayesian inference for discrete intractable likelihood. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119 0 (547): 0 2345--2355, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    State space G aussian processes with non- G aussian likelihood

    Nickisch, H., Solin, A., and Grigorevskiy, A. State space G aussian processes with non- G aussian likelihood. In International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp.\ 3789--3798, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Pleiss, G., Gardner, J., Weinberger, K., and Wilson, A. G. Constant-time predictive distributions for G aussian processes. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 4114--4123. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    E., Tung, F., and Striebel, C

    Rauch, H. E., Tung, F., and Striebel, C. T. Maximum likelihood estimates of linear dynamic systems. AIAA Journal, 3 0 (8): 0 1445--1450, 1965

    1965

  35. [43]

    and Roberts, S

    Reece, S. and Roberts, S. An introduction to G aussian processes for the K alman filter expert. In International Conference on Information Fusion, pp.\ 1--9, 2010

    2010

  36. [44]

    Towards robust inference for B ayesian filtering of linear G aussian dynamical systems subject to additive change

    Reimann, H. Towards robust inference for B ayesian filtering of linear G aussian dynamical systems subject to additive change. Master's thesis, Universit \"a t Potsdam, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Y., Cockayne, J., Swietach, P., Niederer, S

    Riabiz, M., Chen, W. Y., Cockayne, J., Swietach, P., Niederer, S. A., Mackey, L., and Oates, C. J. Optimal thinning of mcmc output. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 84 0 (4): 0 1059--1081, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Ruanaidh, J. J. O. and Fitzgerald, W. J. Numerical Bayesian methods applied to signal processing. Springer Science & Business Media, 1996

    1996

  39. [47]

    J., Williams, B

    Santner, T. J., Williams, B. J., and Notz, W. I. The Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments. Springer, 2nd edition, 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    and Garc \' a-Fern \'a ndez, \'A

    S \"a rkk \"a , S. and Garc \' a-Fern \'a ndez, \'A . F. Temporal parallelization of bayesian smoothers. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 66 0 (1): 0 299--306, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    and Hartikainen, J

    Sarkka, S. and Hartikainen, J. Infinite-dimensional K alman filtering approach to spatio-temporal G aussian process regression. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 22, pp.\ 993--1001. PMLR, 2012

    2012

  42. [50]

    and Solin, A

    S \"a rkk \"a , S. and Solin, A. Applied stochastic differential equations, volume 10. Cambridge University Press, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Predicting spatio-temporal propagation of seasonal influenza using variational G aussian process regression

    Senanayake, R., O'Callaghan, S., and Ramos, F. Predicting spatio-temporal propagation of seasonal influenza using variational G aussian process regression. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 30, 2016

    2016

  44. [52]

    A., Martinelli, J., and Kaski, S

    Sinaga, M. A., Martinelli, J., and Kaski, S. Computation-aware robust G aussian processes. In NeurIPS 2024 Workshop on B ayesian Decision-making and Uncertainty , 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Stochastic differential equation methods for spatio-temporal G aussian process regression

    Solin, A. Stochastic differential equation methods for spatio-temporal G aussian process regression . PhD thesis, Aalto University, 2016

    2016

  46. [54]

    and S \"a rkk \"a , S

    Solin, A. and S \"a rkk \"a , S. G aussian quadratures for state space approximation of scale mixtures of squared exponential covariance functions. In IEEE International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing, pp.\ 1--6. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  47. [55]

    Interpolation of Spatial Data - Some Theory for Kriging

    Stein, M. Interpolation of Spatial Data - Some Theory for Kriging . Springer Science+Business Media, 1999

    1999

  48. [56]

    Bayesian Filtering and Smoothing

    Särkkä, S. Bayesian Filtering and Smoothing. Institute of Mathematical Statistics Textbooks. Cambridge University Press, 2013

    2013

  49. [57]

    and Rasekh, A

    Tadayon, V. and Rasekh, A. Non- G aussian covariate-dependent spatial measurement error model for analyzing big spatial data . Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, 24: 0 49--72, 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    Variational learning of inducing variables in sparse G aussian processes

    Titsias, M. Variational learning of inducing variables in sparse G aussian processes. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.\ 567--574. PMLR, 2009

    2009

  51. [59]

    Wang, C., Chen, X., Smola, A., and Xing, E. P. Variance reduction for stochastic gradient optimization. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems-Volume 1, pp.\ 181--189, 2013

    2013

  52. [60]

    and Djuri \'c , P

    Waxman, D. and Djuri \'c , P. M. A gaussian process-based streaming algorithm for prediction of time series with regimes and outliers. In 2024 27th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), pp.\ 1--8. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    J., S \"a rkk \"a , S., and Solin, A

    Wilkinson, W. J., S \"a rkk \"a , S., and Solin, A. Bayes- N ewton methods for approximate B ayesian inference with psd guarantees. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (83): 0 1--50, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Williams, C. K. and Rasmussen, C. E. G aussian processes for machine learning , volume 2. MIT press Cambridge, MA, 2006

    2006

  55. [63]

    and Nickisch, H

    Wilson, A. and Nickisch, H. Kernel interpolation for scalable structured G aussian processes (kiss-gp). In International conference on machine learning, pp.\ 1775--1784. PMLR, 2015

    2015

  56. [64]

    Windham, M. P. Robustifying model fitting. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), pp.\ 599--609, 1995

    1995

  57. [65]

    and Martin, R

    Wu, P.-S. and Martin, R. A comparison of learning rate selection methods in generalized Bayesian inference . Bayesian Analysis, 18 0 (1): 0 105--132, 2023

    2023

  58. [66]

    L., Wood, A

    Xu, J., Scealy, J. L., Wood, A. T., and Zou, T. Generalized score matching for regression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.09864, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Generalized score matching for non-negative data

    Yu, S., Drton, M., and Shojaie, A. Generalized score matching for non-negative data . Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20: 0 1--70, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.