Gaussian processes for dynamics learning in model predictive control

Amon Lahr; Anna Scampicchio; Elena Arcari; Melanie N. Zeilinger

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Gaussian processes for dynamics learning in model predictive control

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review assembles a self-contained toolkit for Gaussian-process-based model predictive control, organizing scalable regression, uncertainty propagation, and closed-loop guarantees, and pointing to open problems in safe learning-based…

desk verdict A useful, wide-ranging review of GP-based MPC, but a missing-term error in the central propagation formula makes it unsafe as a formula reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02310 v1 pith:S7TIW76N submitted 2025-02-04 eess.SY cs.SY

Anna Scampicchio , Elena Arcari , Amon Lahr , Melanie N. Zeilinger This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 60G1562F1562G0562J0793B4593E20

keywords Gaussianprocessregressionmodelpredictivecontroluncertaintypropagationscalableprocesseschanceconstraintslearning-basedclosed-loopguarantees

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's aim is to turn Gaussian process-based model predictive control (GP-MPC) into a field a newcomer can enter from a map: it argues that every GP-MPC scheme is an assembly of three choices—how to make the Gaussian process regression scalable, how to propagate its uncertainty across the prediction horizon, and how to turn that uncertainty into guarantees that constraints hold with a chosen probability. It reviews each of these ingredients, including methods from outside control that have not yet been used there, and shows how they combine into one implementable MPC structure. If the review is right, a practitioner can pick a scalable GP approximation, a propagation rule, and a back-off method from surveyed options and assemble a working controller without reinventing the pipeline. It also identifies the open theoretical bottlenecks: online model updates that preserve guarantees, error bounds for scalable approximations, and uncertainty quantification tools that are still unexploited in control.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the approximate stochastic optimal control problem recast as receding-horizon MPC: at each time k, minimize a cost over a control sequence while propagating the predicted state mean $\mu^x_{i+1|k} = \rho(u_{i|k}, \mu^x_{i|k}, \Sigma^x_{i|k})$ and covariance $\Sigma^x_{i+1|k} = \Phi(u_{i|k}, \mu^x_{i|k}, \Sigma^x_{i|k})$, and enforcing tightened constraints $h_j(\mu^x_{i|k}, u_{i|k}) + \nu_j(u_{i|k}, \mu^x_{i|k}, \Sigma^x_{i|k}) \leq 0$. The machinery is the decomposition itself: scalable GP approximations (subsets, inducing variables, spectral or truncated-kernel representations, numerical solvers) set the cost of evaluating $\rho$ and $\Phi$; uncertainty propagation schemes (linearization, moment matching, $\sigma$-points, Monte Carlo) define their functional form; and chance-constraint handling (bounded support, robust-in-probability, sampling) determines the back-off $\nu$. The worked example instantiates this with the Fully Independent Training Conditional (FITC) sparse GP, linearization-based propagation, and an inverse-Gaussian back-off, showing how the pieces fit.

What would settle it

Inspect the Section 4 statement that after Cholesky factorization, training computes $\log\det(K_{Z,Z})$ and $\partial\log\det(K_{Z,Z})/\partial\xi=\operatorname{tr}(K_{Z,Z}^{-1}\partial K_{Z,Z}/\partial\xi)$ in $O(N)$ operations. For a generic dense kernel matrix, computing that trace requires the diagonal of the inverse or N solves, costing $\Theta(N^2)$ after the factorization, so the $O(N)$ claim fails on a direct complexity check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the practical effectiveness of Gaussian-process MPC already outruns the theory, and that the theory can be advanced by explicitly separating three challenges: scalability of GP regression with growing and streaming data; propagation of uncertainty over a receding horizon despite the fact that exact distributions are non-Gaussian and intractable; and construction of closed-loop safety guarantees, which requires either robust-in-probability confidence regions or sampling-based back-offs. The review's organizing formulation is the moment-based MPC problem (45), where predicted state mean and covariance are propagated by user-chosen functions ρ and Φ and constraints are tightened by a back-off ν; every surveyed contribution is positioned by the choices it makes for these three ingredients. The paper also claims that several promising uncertainty-quantification tools—Bayesian uniform error bounds, conformal prediction, multi-step predictors—have not yet been exploited in GP-MPC and could yield less conservative safe controllers.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's value rests on its technical summaries being accurate, e.g., the claim that after Cholesky factorization the log-determinant gradient costs O(N), despite that gradient involving the trace of a matrix inverse, which is not O(N) in general.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A reader can use the survey as a decision chart: choose a scalable GP method from Section 4, an uncertainty propagation rule from Section 5, and a constraint-tightening method from Section 6, and assemble the MPC problem (45) directly.
The moment-based formulation (45) is the common denominator of most existing GP-MPC applications, so new scalable methods will slot into the same pipeline rather than requiring bespoke controllers.
Rigorous closed-loop guarantees in the surveyed literature come only from robust-in-probability or sampling-based approaches; bounded-support heuristics should not be trusted beyond one-step-ahead predictions.
Online learning with GP-MPC improves the model but can destroy recursive feasibility and closed-loop guarantees, so the paper predicts that theoretically grounded online updates remain a key bottleneck.
Uncertainty-quantification tools from outside control (Bayesian uniform bounds, conformal prediction, multi-step predictors) are identified as the most promising source of less conservative safe MPC.

Reading between the lines

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

If the complexity statements are corrected, the qualitative map of methods in Section 4 still stands; the taxonomy of scalability approaches does not depend on the specific O(N) claim.
The decomposition suggests a natural benchmarking protocol: fix a plant and compare each scalable GP paired with each propagation rule under the same back-off; such a systematic comparison is not provided in the review.
The moment-based MPC structure (45) could be extended to non-Markovian trajectory correlations in a receding-horizon setting, which the paper notes has so far only been done for shrinking horizons.
Conformal prediction, mentioned in the review as promising, could provide distribution-free back-offs that avoid hard-to-verify RKHS norm assumptions, making safety guarantees easier to certify in applications.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know upfront. First, this is a genuinely comprehensive review of GP-based MPC, with good coverage of scalable GPs, uncertainty propagation, and closed-loop safety, plus a useful applications table. Second, it contains at least two concrete technical errors, one of them in the central uncertainty-propagation formula, so I would not hand it to a student as a trustworthy recipe without corrections.

The paper's real contribution is organizational. It gathers uncertainty-quantification results from outside the MPC literature (Bayesian uniform error bounds, conformal prediction, some geostatistics scalability tools) and describes open problems like online learning and safety guarantees in a structured way. That fills a need in a fast-growing field, and the authors generally give a fair account of the literature. No new algorithm or derivation appears, which is fine for a review.

The soft spots are real. Section 5.1.2, Eq. (37), presents the exact moment-matching predictive variance as beta^T L beta - Tr((K + sigma_w^2 I)^{-1} L) - (beta^T l)^2. This drops the prior variance term E[k(z_*, z_*)], which equals lambda for the squared-exponential kernel. Sanity check: with no training data, the formula gives zero variance, while the true predictive variance is the prior variance lambda. That is not a notation slip; it is a missing term in a formula the paper advertises as its toolkit. A reader copying this will systematically underestimate propagated uncertainty. The Section 4 claim that, after Cholesky, the log-determinant and its gradient cost O(N) is also wrong for the gradient trace term, which still needs matrix inverses or a stochastic trace estimator; that is a lesser sin but indicative of carelessness with complexity statements.

There is no search protocol, so the survey is not reproducible in the strict sense, but that is common for reviews and I do not hold it against them.

Net: this is a useful map for someone entering GP-MPC or looking for research gaps. It is not a reliable reference for formulas. It deserves serious peer review because the field needs a comprehensive survey, but the referee should demand correction of Eq. (37) and a careful pass over complexity claims. I would not cite it until those fixes are made.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of Gaussian process-based model predictive control (GP-MPC). It introduces the GP regression background, formulates the stochastic optimal control problem approximated by MPC, and organizes the literature around three core challenges: scalability of GP regression (Section 4), uncertainty propagation over the prediction horizon (Section 5), and closed-loop safety guarantees (Section 6). The later sections survey how these ingredients are combined in practice, discuss alternative dynamics models and uncertainty quantification paradigms, and list open research problems. The authors aim to provide a self-contained toolkit for studying and advancing GP-MPC.

Significance. If its technical content is accurate, this review is a valuable and timely synthesis of a rapidly growing field. It systematically maps a large and fragmented literature, provides a useful application table, and identifies concrete open challenges. The paper's utility as a toolkit, however, depends on the correctness of the technical characterizations it presents. The errors identified below in the uncertainty-propagation formula and in the computational-complexity discussion directly affect two of the three core pillars of the review, so they must be corrected for the survey to serve its stated purpose.

major comments (2)

[Section 5.1.2, Eq. (37)] The formula for the predictive variance in exact moment matching omits the prior variance term E[k(z_*, z_*)], which equals lambda for the squared-exponential kernel. Expanding E[Sigma(z_*)] + Var[mu(z_*)] gives E[k(z_*, z_*)] - Tr((K_{Z,Z} + sigma_w^2 I)^{-1} L) + beta^T L beta - (beta^T l)^2. As printed, the leading lambda is missing, so the expression systematically underestimates the propagated uncertainty; a sanity check with N=0 yields 0 instead of the prior variance lambda. Because Section 5 is one of the three core pillars of the review, this is a load-bearing error that should be corrected.
[Section 4, first paragraph] The claim that, after Cholesky factorization, the training computations for log det(K_{Z,Z}) and its gradient d/dxi log det(K_{Z,Z}) = tr(K_{Z,Z}^{-1} dK_{Z,Z}/dxi) 'require O(N) operations' is inaccurate. The log-determinant is O(N) after the factorization, but the gradient involves an inner product with K_{Z,Z}^{-1}, which requires solving a linear system with N right-hand sides (O(N^3) naively, or O(N^2) using the Cholesky factors). This understates the cost of hyper-parameter optimization and should be corrected to avoid misleading readers about the scalability of full GP training.

minor comments (5)

[Section 5.1.2] The matrix L is not explicitly defined; please define its entries as L_{ij} = E[k(z_i, z_*) k(z_*, z_j)] (or give the closed-form expression from the cited reference) so that Eq. (37) is reproducible.
[Section 4.3.1, Eq. (30)] The normalization of the spectral density for the squared-exponential kernel is only correct for nz = 1; for nz-dimensional inputs the expression should read (2*pi*eta)^{nz/2} exp(-2*pi^2*eta ||s||^2), not sqrt(2*pi*eta^{nz}) exp(-2*pi^2*eta ||s||^2).
[Table 2] The column headers 'Simulation only' and 'Online' are ambiguous; please clarify whether the former indicates that the results are simulation-based as opposed to experimental, and whether the latter indicates that online model updates are performed during operation.
[Section 4.5] The reference numbering appears to jump from [383] to [343] in the text; please verify that the citations are consistent with the reference list.
[Section 7.3.2] The statement that combining model (47) with the Gaussian process representation of [106] yields 'latent force models' would benefit from a direct citation to the latent force model literature, as that terminology is commonly attributed to a different line of work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Review is a literature synthesis; self-citations are illustrative, not load-bearing; no circular derivation found.

full rationale

The paper is a review, not a derivation: it makes no new technical predictions, fits no parameters, and presents no uniqueness theorem that would force a particular modeling choice. Its central deliverable, as stated in the abstract, is to provide a toolkit by surveying existing results on scalable Gaussian processes, uncertainty propagation, and closed-loop guarantees. The technical content in Sections 2, 4, 5, and 6 is taken from and attributed to the external literature; for example, the GP posterior equations in (9) are standard textbook results, and the uncertainty propagation methods in Section 5 are attributed to Girard, Deisenroth, and others. Self-citations such as [142], [196], and [65] appear as illustrative examples or as one among several references, but none is load-bearing: the review's conclusions do not reduce to those citations, and no alternative is excluded by an author-imported uniqueness theorem. The suspected omission in Eq. (37) of the E[k(z*,z*)] term and the Section 4 claim about O(N) training operations are technical-accuracy concerns, not circularity, because even if incorrect they do not make the paper's claims equivalent to their inputs by construction. Under the required quote-and-reduction standard, no circular step can be exhibited; the minor self-citation presence is not a circularity defect.

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

This is a review paper, so its central claim is not a derivation but a synthesis. The ledger therefore contains no free parameters or invented entities. The main burden is on the accuracy of the survey: the comprehensiveness of the literature and the correctness of its technical summaries, which are unverified by any reproducible artifact.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The surveyed literature is correctly and completely represented.
The review does not provide a systematic search protocol or inclusion criteria; its value depends on the accuracy and representativeness of its reference list.
standard math Standard Gaussian process regression formulas (Section 2) are correct and apply to the reviewed MPC formulations.
The review builds on these background results to frame the problem; they are standard and not in dispute.
domain assumption The complexity statements for scalable GP methods (Section 4) are accurate.
One specific statement, that training computations for log-determinant and its gradient require O(N) operations, appears inaccurate, so this assumption is partially violated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gaussian processes for dynamics learning in model predictive control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S7TIW76N

@misc{pith2026250202310,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gaussian processes for dynamics learning in model predictive control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S7TIW76N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02310}
}

read the original abstract

Due to its state-of-the-art estimation performance complemented by rigorous and non-conservative uncertainty bounds, Gaussian process regression is a popular tool for enhancing dynamical system models and coping with their inaccuracies. This has enabled a plethora of successful implementations of Gaussian process-based model predictive control in a variety of applications over the last years. However, despite its evident practical effectiveness, there are still many open questions when attempting to analyze the associated optimal control problem theoretically and to exploit the full potential of Gaussian process regression in view of safe learning-based control. The contribution of this review is twofold. The first is to survey the available literature on the topic, highlighting the major theoretical challenges such as (i) addressing scalability issues of Gaussian process regression; (ii) taking into account the necessary approximations to obtain a tractable MPC formulation; (iii) including online model updates to refine the dynamics description, exploiting data collected during operation. The second is to provide an extensive discussion of future research directions, collecting results on uncertainty quantification that are related to (but yet unexploited in) optimal control, among others. Ultimately, this paper provides a toolkit to study and advance Gaussian process-based model predictive control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02310 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Graphical paper roadmap Topics not covered. Finally, we would like to point out that in this review paper, we focus on Gaussian process regression just for learning the dynamics, and do not dwell on their use for learning the constraints (e.g., for safe active learning) or the cost function (for problems of inverse optimal control or Bayesian optimization), nor for approximating MPC laws – we refer to [5] for in… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Graphical overview of Section 2. with scaling factor λ > 0, and η > 0 denoting the kernel width. In this framework, λ plays the role of model order: because it belongs to the positive real numbers, it is more flexibly tunable than the discrete value denoting the number of features in parametric models. There are many other possible choices for the kernel, depending on the prior information to be encoded: some popul… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Graphical overview of Section 4. performed in O(N2 ) operations, while the required computations for training, i.e., log det (KZ,Z) and ∂ ∂ξ log det (KZ,Z) = tr K −1 Z,Z ∂KZ,Z ∂ξ , require O(N) operations. Note that for predictions with a fixed data-set and hyper-parameters, it suffices to pre-factorize the Gram matrix once, as it does not depend on the test points. For the posterior mean, the computational and … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Qualitative visualization for the performance of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Graphical overview of Section 5. independence assumption in Section 5.3. Note that in the following subsections we assume that the nominal dynamics gnom is equal to 0 and set the matrix Bd as the identity. The general case requires careful consideration of both propaga…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Independent one-step-ahead predictions: (Left p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Visualization of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Graphical overview of Section 6. non-parametric estimation is assumed to be known before operation and is used to perform robust control design. In view of this, it is then key to assume that the model error g(·) lies in a compact set – a heuristic based on the practi…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Graphical overview of Section 7. a summary of the available papers on applications of Gaussian process-based MPC in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_9.png]

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

Diffusion-Residual Model Predictive Steering Control for Vehicle Stabilization at the Limit of Handling under Model Uncertainty
cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Command-conditioned diffusion residual moments resize the MPC yaw reference and chance-tighten the handling envelope, cutting peak side-slip and recovering low-μ stability in simulation at 100 Hz.
Learning, fast and slow: a two-fold algorithm for data-based model adaptation
eess.SY 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Combining control-chart-triggered ensemble expansion with online Gaussian process residual correction lifts FIT from 69.5% to 94.2% on a district heating case.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

D. Q. Mayne, Model predictive control: Recent de- velopments and future promise, Automatica 50 (2014) 2967–2986

2014
[2]

Schwenzer, M

M. Schwenzer, M. Ay, T. Bergs, D. Abel, Review on model predictive control: an engineering perspective, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 117 (2021) 1327–1349

2021
[3]

J. B. Rawlings, D. Q. Mayne, M. Diehl, Model Predic- tive Control: Theory, Computation, and Design, Nob Hill Publishing, 2017

2017
[4]

Hewing, K

L. Hewing, K. P. Wabersich, M. Menner, M. N. Zeilinger, Learning-Based Model Predictive Control: Toward Safe Learning in Control, Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 3 (2020) 269–296

2020
[5]

Mesbah, K

A. Mesbah, K. P. Wabersich, A. P. Schoellig, M. N. Zeilinger, S. Lucia, T. A. Badgwell, J. A. Paulson, Fusion of Machine Learning and MPC under Uncer- tainty: What Advances Are on the Horizon?, in: 2022 American Control Conference (ACC), 2022, pp. 342– 357

2022
[6]

Bemporad, M

A. Bemporad, M. Morari, Robust model predictive control: A survey, in: A. Garulli, A. Tesi (Eds.), Ro- bustness in identiﬁcation and control, Springer, Lon- don, 1999, pp. 207–226

1999
[7]

Kouvaritakis, M

B. Kouvaritakis, M. Cannon, Model Predictive Con- trol, Advanced Textbooks in Control and Signal Pro- cessing, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016

2016
[8]

Milanese, A

M. Milanese, A. Vicino, Optimal estimation theory for dynamic systems with set membership uncertainty: An overview, Automatica 27 (1991) 997–1009. 39

1991

Show all 300 references

[9]

Milanese, C

M. Milanese, C. Novara, Set Membership identiﬁca- tion of nonlinear systems, Automatica 40 (2004) 957– 975

2004
[10]

Canale, L

M. Canale, L. Fagiano, M. C. Signorile, Nonlinear model predictive control from data: a set membership approach, International Journal of Robust and Non- linear Control 24 (2014) 123–139

2014
[11]

Mesbah, Stochastic Model Predictive Control: An Overview and Perspectives for Future Research, IEEE Control Systems Magazine 36 (2016) 30–44

A. Mesbah, Stochastic Model Predictive Control: An Overview and Perspectives for Future Research, IEEE Control Systems Magazine 36 (2016) 30–44

2016
[12]

Farina, L

M. Farina, L. Giulioni, R. Scattolini, Stochastic line ar Model Predictive Control with chance constraints – A review, Journal of Process Control 44 (2016) 53–67

2016
[13]

C. E. Rasmussen, C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian pro- cesses for machine learning, Adaptive computation and machine learning, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 2006

2006
[14]

Piche, B

S. Piche, B. Sayyar-Rodsari, D. Johnson, M. Gerules, Nonlinear model predictive control using neural net- works, IEEE Control Systems Magazine 20 (2000) 53–62

2000
[15]

Y. M. Ren, M. S. Alhajeri, J. Luo, S. Chen, F. Ab- dullah, Z. Wu, P. D. Christoﬁdes, A tutorial review of neural network modeling approaches for model predic- tive control, Computers & Chemical Engineering 165 (2022) 107956

2022
[16]

Y. Bao, K. J. Chan, A. Mesbah, J. M. Velni, Learning- based adaptive-scenario-tree model predictive con- trol with improved probabilistic safety using robust Bayesian neural networks, International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control 33 (2023) 3312–3333

2023
[17]

Y. Bao, H. S. Abbas, J. Mohammadpour Velni, A learning- and scenario-based MPC design for nonlinear systems in LPV framework with safety and stability guarantees, International Journal of Control 0 (2023) 1–20

2023
[18]

Limon, J

D. Limon, J. Calliess, J. M. Maciejowski, Learning- based Nonlinear Model Predictive Control**The au- thors would like to ackowledge to the Spanish MINECO Grant PRX15-00300 and projects DPI2013- 48243-C2-2-R and DPI2016-76493-C3-1-R as well as to the Engineering and Physical R...

2017
[19]

J. M. Manzano, D. Limon, D. Mu˜ noz de la Pe˜ na, J. Calliess, Robust Data-Based Model Predictive Control for Nonlinear Constrained Systems, IFAC- PapersOnLine 51 (2018) 505–510

2018
[20]

J. A. Paulson, A. Mesbah, Nonlinear Model Predictive Control with Explicit Backoﬀs for Stochastic Systems under Arbitrary Uncertainty, IFAC-PapersOnLine 51 (2018) 523–534

2018
[21]

Murray-Smith, D

R. Murray-Smith, D. Sbarbaro, C. E. Rasmussen, A. Girard, Adaptive, cautious, predictive control with gaussian process priors, IFAC Proceedings Volumes 36 (2003) 1155–1160

2003
[22]

Kober, J

J. Kober, J. A. Bagnell, J. Peters, Reinforcement learning in robotics: A survey, The International Jour- nal of Robotics Research 32 (2013) 1238–1274

2013
[23]

A. S. Polydoros, L. Nalpantidis, Survey of Model- Based Reinforcement Learning: Applications on Robotics, Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 86 (2017) 153–173

2017
[24]

Garc´ ıa, F

J. Garc´ ıa, F. Fern´ andez, A Comprehensive Survey on Safe Reinforcement Learning, Journal of Machine Learning Research 16 (2015) 1437–1480

2015
[25]

Moerland, J

T. Moerland, J. Broekens, A. Plaat, C. Jonker, Model- based Reinforcement Learning: A Survey, Now Foun- dations and Trentds, 2023

2023
[26]

Plaat, W

A. Plaat, W. Kosters, M. Preuss, High-accuracy model-based reinforcement learning, a survey, Arti- ﬁcial Intelligence Review 56 (2023) 9541–9573

2023
[27]

M. P. Deisenroth, C. E. Rasmussen, PILCO: A Model- Based and Data-Eﬃcient Approach to Policy Search, in: Proceedings of the 28th International Confer- ence on International Conference on Machine Learn- ing, Omnipress, Bellevue, Washington, USA, 2011, pp. 465–472

2011
[28]

Kamthe, M

S. Kamthe, M. Deisenroth, Data-Eﬃcient Reinforce- ment Learning with Probabilistic Model Predictive Control, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-First Interna- tional Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statis- tics, PMLR, 2018, pp. 1701–1710

2018
[29]

Berkenkamp, M

F. Berkenkamp, M. Turchetta, A. Schoellig, A. Krause, Safe Model-based Reinforcement Learning with Stability Guarantees, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

2017
[30]

Brunke, M

L. Brunke, M. Greeﬀ, A. W. Hall, Z. Yuan, S. Zhou, J. Panerati, A. P. Schoellig, Safe Learning in Robotics: From Learning-Based Control to Safe Reinforcement Learning, Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 5 (2022) 411–444

2022
[31]

G. S. Lima, S. Trimpe, W. M. Bessa, Sliding Mode Control with Gaussian Process Regression for Under- water Robots, Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Sys- tems 99 (2020) 487–498

2020
[32]

T. Kim, W. Kim, S. Choi, H. Jin Kim, Path Track- ing for a Skid-steer Vehicle using Model Predictive Control with On-line Sparse Gaussian Process, IFAC- PapersOnLine 50 (2017) 5755–5760

2017
[33]

Chowdhary, H

G. Chowdhary, H. A. Kingravi, J. P. How, P. A. Vela, Bayesian Nonparametric Adaptive Control Us- ing Gaussian Processes, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 26 (2015) 537–550

2015
[34]

Gregorcic, G

G. Gregorcic, G. Lightbody, Gaussian process ap- proaches to nonlinear modelling for control, in: In- telligent Control Systems using Computational Intel- ligence Techniques, volume 70 of IEE Control Series , London, 2005, pp. 177–217

2005
[35]

Aˇ zman, J

K. Aˇ zman, J. Kocijan, Fixed-structure Gaussian pro- cess model, International Journal of Systems Science 40 (2009) 1253–1262

2009
[36]

Nguyen-Tuong, M

D. Nguyen-Tuong, M. Seeger, J. Peters, Computed torque control with nonparametric regression models, in: 2008 American Control Conference, 2008, pp. 212– 217

2008
[37]

Hastie, R

T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, J. Friedman, The Elements of Statistical Learning, Springer Series in Statistics, Springer, New York, NY, 2009

2009
[38]

Ljung, System identiﬁcation: theory for the user, Prentice-Hall, Inc., USA, 1986

L. Ljung, System identiﬁcation: theory for the user, Prentice-Hall, Inc., USA, 1986

1986
[39]

Matheron, Principles of geostatistics, Economic Geology 58 (1963) 1246–1266

G. Matheron, Principles of geostatistics, Economic Geology 58 (1963) 1246–1266

1963
[40]

Wahba, Spline Models for Observational Data, SIAM, 1990

G. Wahba, Spline Models for Observational Data, SIAM, 1990

1990
[41]

Poggio, F

T. Poggio, F. Girosi, Networks for approximation and learning, Proceedings of the IEEE 78 (1990) 1481– 1497

1990
[42]

Evgeniou, M

T. Evgeniou, M. Pontil, T. Poggio, Regularization 40 Networks and Support Vector Machines, Advances in Computational Mathematics 13 (2000) 1–50

2000
[43]

J. A. K. Suykens, T. V. Gestel, J. D. Brabanter, B. D. Moor, J. P. L. Vandewalle, Least Squares Support Vec- tor Machines, World Scientiﬁc, 2002

2002
[44]

Sch¨ olkopf, A

B. Sch¨ olkopf, A. J. Smola, Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimiza- tion, and Beyond, The MIT Press, 2018

2018
[45]

O’Hagan, Curve Fitting and Optimal Design for Prediction, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society

A. O’Hagan, Curve Fitting and Optimal Design for Prediction, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 40 (1978) 1–42

1978
[46]

R. M. Neal, Bayesian Learning for Neural Networks, volume 118 of Lecture Notes in Statistics , Springer, New York, NY, 1996

1996
[47]

Aronszajn, Theory of Reproducing Kernels, Trans- actions of the American Mathematical Society 68 (1950) 337–404

N. Aronszajn, Theory of Reproducing Kernels, Trans- actions of the American Mathematical Society 68 (1950) 337–404

1950
[48]

Berlinet, C

A. Berlinet, C. Thomas-Agnan, Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces in Probability and Statistics, Springer US, Boston, MA, 2004

2004
[49]

Saitoh, Y

S. Saitoh, Y. Sawano, Theory of Reproducing Ker- nels and Applications, volume 44 of Developments in Mathematics, Springer, Singapore, 2016

2016
[50]

Gelman, Andrew, Carlin, John B., Stern, Hal S., Dunson, David B., Vehtari, Aki, Rubin, Donald B., Bayesian Data Analysis, 3 ed., Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, 2015

2015
[51]

D. T. Hristopulos, Gaussian Random Fields, in: D. T. Hristopulos (Ed.), Random Fields for Spatial Data Modeling: A Primer for Scientists and Engineers, Ad- vances in Geographic Information Science, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2020, pp. 245–307

2020
[52]

C. A. Micchelli, Y. Xu, H. Zhang, Universal Kernels, Journal of Machine Learning Research 7 (2006) 2651– 2667

2006
[53]

M¨ uller, S

K.-R. M¨ uller, S. Mika, G. Ratsch, K. Tsuda, B. Sch¨ olkopf, An introduction to kernel-based learning algorithms, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 12 (2001) 181–201

2001
[54]

Duvenaud, Automatic model construction with Gaussian processes (2014)

D. Duvenaud, Automatic model construction with Gaussian processes (2014)

2014
[55]

B. D. O. Anderson, J. B. Moore, Optimal Filtering, Courier Corporation, 2005

2005
[56]

Cucker, D

F. Cucker, D. X. Zhou, Learning Theory: An Approxi- mation Theory Viewpoint, Cambridge Monographs on Applied and Computational Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, 2007

2007
[57]

Boucheron, G

S. Boucheron, G. Lugosi, P. Massart, S. Boucheron, G. Lugosi, P. Massart, Concentration Inequalities: A Nonasymptotic Theory of Independence, Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, New York, 2013

2013
[58]

Smale, D.-X

S. Smale, D.-X. Zhou, Learning Theory Estimates via Integral Operators and Their Approximations, Con- structive Approximation 26 (2007) 153–172

2007
[59]

E. T. Maddalena, P. Scharnhorst, C. N. Jones, Deter- ministic error bounds for kernel-based learning tech- niques under bounded noise, Automatica 134 (2021) 109896

2021
[60]

Wang, D.-X

C. Wang, D.-X. Zhou, Optimal learning rates for least squares regularized regression with unbounded sam- pling, Journal of Complexity 27 (2011) 55–67

2011
[61]

Guo, D.-X

Z.-C. Guo, D.-X. Zhou, Concentration estimates for learning with unbounded sampling, Advances in Com- putational Mathematics 38 (2013) 207–223

2013
[62]

Srinivas, A

N. Srinivas, A. Krause, S. M. Kakade, M. W. Seeger, Information-Theoretic Regret Bounds for Gaussian Process Optimization in the Bandit Setting, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 58 (2012) 3250– 3265

2012
[63]

S. R. Chowdhury, A. Gopalan, On Kernelized Multi- armed Bandits, in: Proceedings of the 34th Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2017, pp. 844–853

2017
[64]

Fiedler, C

C. Fiedler, C. W. Scherer, S. Trimpe, Practical and Rigorous Uncertainty Bounds for Gaussian Process Regression, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence 35 (2021) 7439–7447

2021
[65]

Baggio, A

G. Baggio, A. Car` e, A. Scampicchio, G. Pillonetto, Bayesian frequentist bounds for machine learning and system identiﬁcation, Automatica 146 (2022) 110599

2022
[66]

Shafer, V

G. Shafer, V. Vovk, A Tutorial on Conformal Predic- tion, Journal of Machine Learning Research 9 (2008) 371–421

2008
[67]

V. Vovk, A. Gammerman, G. Shafer, Algorithmic Learning in a Random World, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022

2022
[68]

J. Lei, L. Wasserman, Distribution-free Prediction Bands for Non-parametric Regression, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Method- ology 76 (2014) 71–96

2014
[69]

R. J. Tibshirani, R. Foygel Barber, E. Candes, A. Ramdas, Conformal Prediction Under Covariate Shift, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32, Curran Associates, Inc., 2019

2019
[70]

A. N. Angelopoulos, S. Bates, A Gentle Introduction to Conformal Prediction and Distribution-Free Uncer- tainty Quantiﬁcation, 2022

2022
[71]

Fontana, G

M. Fontana, G. Zeni, S. Vantini, Conformal predic- tion: A uniﬁed review of theory and new challenges, Bernoulli 29 (2023) 1–23. Publisher: Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability

2023
[72]

Cauchois, S

M. Cauchois, S. Gupta, A. Ali, J. C. Duchi, Robust Validation: Conﬁdent Predictions Even When Distributions Shift, Journal of the American Statistical Association 119 (2024) 3033–3044. Publisher: ASA Website eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2023.2298037

2024
[73]

Gilks, Richardson, Sylvia, Spiegelhalter, Daniel (Eds.), Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice, Chap- man and Hall/CRC, New York, 1995

W. Gilks, Richardson, Sylvia, Spiegelhalter, Daniel (Eds.), Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice, Chap- man and Hall/CRC, New York, 1995

1995
[74]

Maritz, T

J. Maritz, T. Lwin, Empirical Bayes Methods, Rout- ledge, London, 2018

2018
[75]

A. N. Tikhonov, V. I. Arsenin, Solutions of Ill-posed Problems, Winston, 1977

1977
[76]

G. S. Kimeldorf, G. Wahba, A Correspondence Be- tween Bayesian Estimation on Stochastic Processes and Smoothing by Splines, The Annals of Mathemat- ical Statistics 41 (1970) 495–502

1970
[77]

A. Y. Aravkin, B. M. Bell, J. V. Burke, G. Pillonetto, The Connection Between Bayesian Estimation of a Gaussian Random Field and RKHS, IEEE Transac- tions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 26 (2015) 1518–1524

2015
[78]

Kanagawa, P

M. Kanagawa, P. Hennig, D. Sejdinovic, B. K. Sripe- rumbudur, Gaussian Processes and Kernel Meth- ods: A Review on Connections and Equivalences, arXiv:1807.02582 [cs, stat] (2018)

2018 arXiv
[79]

M. F. Driscoll, The reproducing kernel Hilbert space structure of the sample paths of a Gaussian pro- cess, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und 41 Verwandte Gebiete 26 (1973) 309–316

1973
[80]

Cucker, S

F. Cucker, S. Smale, On the mathematical foundations of learning, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 39 (2002) 1–49

2002
[81]

Hartikainen, Sequential Inference for Latent Tem- poral Gaussian Process Models, 2013

J. Hartikainen, Sequential Inference for Latent Tem- poral Gaussian Process Models, 2013

2013
[82]

McHutchon, Nonlinear Modelling and Control us- ing Gaussian Processes, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, 2014

A. McHutchon, Nonlinear Modelling and Control us- ing Gaussian Processes, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, 2014

2014
[83]

Frigola-Alcalde, Bayesian Time Series Learning with Gaussian Processes, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, 2015

R. Frigola-Alcalde, Bayesian Time Series Learning with Gaussian Processes, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, 2015

2015
[84]

Kocijan, Modelling and Control of Dynamic Sys- tems Using Gaussian Process Models, Advances in Industrial Control, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016

J. Kocijan, Modelling and Control of Dynamic Sys- tems Using Gaussian Process Models, Advances in Industrial Control, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016

2016
[85]

Svensson, Machine learning with state-space mod- els, Gaussian processes and Monte Carlo methods, PhD Thesis, Uppsala University, 2018

A. Svensson, Machine learning with state-space mod- els, Gaussian processes and Monte Carlo methods, PhD Thesis, Uppsala University, 2018

2018
[86]

S¨ arkk¨ a, Use of Gaussian Processes in System Iden- tiﬁcation, in: J

S. S¨ arkk¨ a, Use of Gaussian Processes in System Iden- tiﬁcation, in: J. Baillieul, T. Samad (Eds.), Encyclo- pedia of Systems and Control, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021, pp. 2393–2402

2021
[87]

Billings, Nonlinear System Identiﬁcation, 1 ed., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2013

S. Billings, Nonlinear System Identiﬁcation, 1 ed., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2013

2013
[88]

Akaike, Autoregressive model ﬁtting for control, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics 23 (1971) 163–180

H. Akaike, Autoregressive model ﬁtting for control, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics 23 (1971) 163–180

1971
[89]

Gregorcic, G

G. Gregorcic, G. Lightbody, Gaussian processes for modelling of dynamic non-linear systems, Proceedings of the Irish Signals and Systems Conference (2002)

2002
[90]

Girard, C

A. Girard, C. E. Rasmussen, R. Murray-Smith, Gaus- sian Process priors with Uncertain Inputs: Multiple- Step-Ahead Prediction, 2002

2002
[91]

Girard, R

A. Girard, R. Murray-Smith, Learning a Gaussian Process Model with Uncertain Inputs, 2003

2003
[92]

Kocijan, A

J. Kocijan, A. Girard, B. Banko, R. Murray-Smith, Dynamic systems identiﬁcation with Gaussian pro- cesses, Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dy- namical Systems 11 (2005) 411–424

2005
[93]

Groot, P

P. Groot, P. Lucas, P. Bosch, Multiple-step Time Series Forecasting with Sparse Gaussian Processes, Ghent, 2011, pp. 105–112

2011
[94]

Gutjahr, H

T. Gutjahr, H. Ulmer, C. Ament, Sparse Gaussian Processes with Uncertain Inputs for Multi-Step Ahead Prediction, IFAC Proceedings Volumes 45 (2012) 107– 112

2012
[95]

Krivec, G

T. Krivec, G. Papa, J. Kocijan, Simulation of varia- tional Gaussian process NARX models with GPGPU, ISA Transactions 109 (2021) 141–151

2021
[96]

Mattos, A

C. Mattos, A. Damianou, G. Barreto, N. Lawrence, Latent Autoregressive Gaussian Processes Models for Robust System Identiﬁcation, IFAC-PapersOnLine 49 (2016) 1121–1126

2016
[97]

Damianou, N

A. Damianou, N. Lawrence, Deep Gaussian Processes, in: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Confer- ence on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2013, pp. 207–215

2013
[98]

Mattos, Z

C. Mattos, Z. Dai, A. Damianou, J. Forth, G. Barreto, N. D. Lawrence, Recurrent Gaussian Processes, CoRR (2015)

2015
[99]

Lawrence, Gaussian Process Latent Variable Mod- els for Visualisation of High Dimensional Data, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 16, MIT Press, 2003

N. Lawrence, Gaussian Process Latent Variable Mod- els for Visualisation of High Dimensional Data, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 16, MIT Press, 2003

2003
[100]

Lawrence, Probabilistic Non-linear Principal Com - ponent Analysis with Gaussian Process Latent Vari- able Models, Journal of Machine Learning Research 6 (2005) 1783–1816

N. Lawrence, Probabilistic Non-linear Principal Com - ponent Analysis with Gaussian Process Latent Vari- able Models, Journal of Machine Learning Research 6 (2005) 1783–1816

2005
[101]

Jiang, J

X. Jiang, J. Gao, X. Hong, Z. Cai, Gaussian Processes Autoencoder for Dimensionality Reduction, in: V. S. Tseng, T. B. Ho, Z.-H. Zhou, A. L. P. Chen, H.-Y. Kao (Eds.), Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer International Pu...

2014
[102]

Takano, T

J. Takano, T. Omori, Gaussian Process Dynamical Autoencoder Model, in: Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Systems, Metaheuristics & Swarm Intelligence, ISMSI ’19, As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019, pp. 45–49

2019
[103]

N. D. Lawrence, J. Qui˜ nonero-Candela, Local distance preservation in the GP-LVM through back constraints, in: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning - ICML ’06, ACM Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2006, pp. 513–520

2006
[104]

Ferris, D

B. Ferris, D. Fox, N. Lawrence, WiFi-SLAM using Gaussian process latent variable models, in: Proceed- ings of the 20th international joint conference on Ar- tiﬁcal intelligence, IJCAI’07, Morgan Kaufmann Pub- lishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 2007, pp. 2480– 2485

2007
[105]

Lawrence, A

N. Lawrence, A. Moore, Hierarchical Gaussian process latent variable models, in: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning, ICML ’07, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2007, pp. 481–488

2007
[106]

Hartikainen, S

J. Hartikainen, S. S¨ arkk¨ a, Kalman ﬁltering and smoothing solutions to temporal Gaussian process re- gression models, in: 2010 IEEE International Work- shop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing, 2010, pp. 379–384

2010
[107]

J. M. Wang, D. J. Fleet, A. Hertzmann, Gaussian Process Dynamical Models for Human Motion, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intel- ligence 30 (2008) 283–298

2008
[108]

Titsias, N

M. Titsias, N. D. Lawrence, Bayesian Gaussian Pro- cess Latent Variable Model, in: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artiﬁcial In- telligence and Statistics, JMLR Workshop and Con- ference Proceedings, 2010, pp. 844–851

2010
[109]

Damianou, M

A. Damianou, M. Titsias, N. Lawrence, Variational Gaussian Process Dynamical Systems, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 24, Curran Associates, Inc., 2011

2011
[110]

Damianou, M

A. Damianou, M. Titsias, N. Lawrence, Variational Inference for Latent Variables and Uncertain Inputs in Gaussian Processes, Journal of Machine Learning Research 17 (2016) 1–62

2016
[111]

D. d. Souza, D. Mesquita, J. P. Gomes, C. L. Mattos, Learning GPLVM with arbitrary kernels using the un- scented transformation, in: Proceedings of The 24th International Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2021, pp. 451–459

2021
[112]

J. Ko, D. Fox, Learning GP-BayesFilters via Gaussian process latent variable models, Autonomous Robots 30 (2011) 3–23

2011
[113]

J. Ko, D. Fox, GP-BayesFilters: Bayesian ﬁltering us- ing Gaussian process prediction and observation mod- els, in: 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on 42 Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2008, pp. 3471–3476

2008
[114]

R. D. Shachter, A Linear Approximation Method for Probabilistic Inference, in: R. D. Shachter, T. S. Levitt, L. N. Kanal, J. F. Lemmer (Eds.), Machine In- telligence and Pattern Recognition, volume 9 ofUncer- tainty in Artiﬁcial Intelligence , North-Holland, 1990, pp. 93–103

1990
[115]

Simon, Optimal State Estimation: Kalman, H In- ﬁnity, and Nonlinear Approaches, Wiley-Interscience, USA, 2006

D. Simon, Optimal State Estimation: Kalman, H In- ﬁnity, and Nonlinear Approaches, Wiley-Interscience, USA, 2006

2006
[116]

E. Wan, R. Van Der Merwe, The unscented Kalman ﬁlter for nonlinear estimation, in: Proceedings of the IEEE 2000 Adaptive Systems for Signal Process- ing, Communications, and Control Symposium (Cat. No.00EX373), IEEE, Lake Louise, Alta., Canada, 2000, pp. 153–158

2000
[117]

Julier, J

S. Julier, J. Uhlmann, Unscented ﬁltering and non- linear estimation, Proceedings of the IEEE 92 (2004) 401–422

2004
[118]

P. Maybeck, Chapter 12 Nonlinear estimation, in: Stochastic models, estimation, and control, volume 141 of Series Mathematics in Science and Engineer- ing, academic press ed., Elsevier, 1979, pp. 212–271

1979
[119]

Brigo, B

D. Brigo, B. Hanzon, F. L. Gland, Approximate non- linear ﬁltering by projection on exponential manifolds of densities, Bernoulli 5 (1999) 495–534

1999
[120]

Gordon, D

N. Gordon, D. Salmond, A. Smith, Novel approach to nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian state estimation, IEE Proceedings F (Radar and Signal Processing) 140 (1993) 107–113

1993
[121]

J. Ko, D. J. Klein, D. Fox, D. Haehnel, Gaussian Pro- cesses and Reinforcement Learning for Identiﬁcation and Control of an Autonomous Blimp, in: Proceed- ings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2007, pp. 742–747

2007
[122]

M. P. Deisenroth, M. F. Huber, U. D. Hanebeck, An- alytic moment-based Gaussian process ﬁltering, in: Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Confer- ence on Machine Learning, ACM, Montreal Quebec Canada, 2009, pp. 225–232

2009
[123]

M. P. Deisenroth, R. D. Turner, M. F. Huber, U. D. Hanebeck, C. E. Rasmussen, Robust Filtering and Smoothing with Gaussian Processes, IEEE Transac- tions on Automatic Control 57 (2012) 1865–1871

2012
[124]

Deisenroth, S

M. Deisenroth, S. Mohamed, Expectation Propagation in Gaussian Process Dynamical Systems, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 25, Curran Associates, Inc., 2012

2012
[125]

Turner, M

R. Turner, M. Deisenroth, C. Rasmussen, State-Space Inference and Learning with Gaussian Processes, in: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Confer- ence on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics, JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2010, pp. 868– 875

2010
[126]

Dempster, N

A. Dempster, N. Laird, D. Rubin, Maximum Likeli- hood from Incomplete Data Via the EM Algorithm, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 39 (1977) 1–22

1977
[127]

Roweis, Z

S. Roweis, Z. Ghahramani, Learning Nonlinear Dy- namical Systems Using the Expectation–Maximization Algorithm, in: Kalman Filtering and Neural Net- works, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2001, pp. 175–220

2001
[128]

T. B. Sch¨ on, A. Wills, B. Ninness, System identiﬁca- tion of nonlinear state-space models, Automatica 47 (2011) 39–49

2011
[129]

Frigola, F

R. Frigola, F. Lindsten, T. B. Sch¨ on, C. E. Rasmussen, Identiﬁcation of Gaussian Process State-Space Models with Particle Stochastic Approximation EM, IFAC Proceedings Volumes 47 (2014) 4097–4102

2014
[130]

Frigola, F

R. Frigola, F. Lindsten, T. B. Sch¨ on, C. E. Rasmussen, Bayesian Inference and Learning in Gaussian Process State-Space Models with Particle MCMC, in: Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol- ume 26, Curran Associates, Inc., 2013

2013
[131]

T. B. Sch¨ on, F. Lindsten, J. Dahlin, J. W ˚ agberg, C. A. Naesseth, A. Svensson, L. Dai, Sequential Monte Carlo Methods for System Identiﬁcation, IFAC- PapersOnLine 48 (2015) 775–786

2015
[132]

Svensson, T

A. Svensson, T. B. Sch¨ on, A. Solin, S. S¨ arkk¨ a, Non- linear state space model identiﬁcation using a regular- ized basis function expansion, in: 2015 IEEE 6th In- ternational Workshop on Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing (CAMSAP), 2015, pp. 481–484

2015
[133]

Svensson, A

A. Svensson, A. Solin, S. S¨ arkk¨ a, T. Sch¨ on, Computa- tionally Eﬃcient Bayesian Learning of Gaussian Pro- cess State Space Models, in: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2016, pp. 213–221

2016
[134]

Svensson, T

A. Svensson, T. B. Sch¨ on, A ﬂexible state–space model for learning nonlinear dynamical systems, Automatica 80 (2017) 189–199

2017
[135]

Frigola, Y

R. Frigola, Y. Chen, C. E. Rasmussen, Variational Gaussian Process State-Space Models, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 27, Curran Associates, Inc., 2014

2014
[136]

Eleftheriadis, T

S. Eleftheriadis, T. Nicholson, M. Deisenroth, J. Hen s- man, Identiﬁcation of Gaussian Process State Space Models, in: Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, volume 30, Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

2017
[137]

A. D. Ialongo, M. van der Wilk, C. E. Rasmussen, Closed-form Inference and Prediction in Gaussian Pro- cess State-Space Models, in: Time Series Workshop at the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

2017
[138]

Doerr, C

A. Doerr, C. Daniel, M. Schiegg, N.-T. Duy, S. Schaal, M. Toussaint, T. Sebastian, Probabilistic Recurrent State-Space Models, in: Proceedings of the 35th In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2018, pp. 1280–1289

2018
[139]

A. D. Ialongo, M. V. D. Wilk, J. Hensman, C. E. Rasmussen, Overcoming Mean-Field Approximations in Recurrent Gaussian Process Models, in: Proceed- ings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2019, pp. 2931–2940

2019
[140]

Lindinger, Variational inference for composite Gaus- sian process models, PhD Thesis, Universit¨ at Pots- dam, 2023

J. Lindinger, Variational inference for composite Gaus- sian process models, PhD Thesis, Universit¨ at Pots- dam, 2023

2023
[141]

Courts, A

J. Courts, A. G. Wills, T. B. Sch¨ on, B. Ninness, Vari- ational system identiﬁcation for nonlinear state-space models, Automatica 147 (2023) 110687

2023
[142]

Arcari, M

E. Arcari, M. V. Minniti, A. Scampicchio, A. Carron, F. Farshidian, M. Hutter, M. N. Zeilinger, Bayesian Multi-Task Learning MPC for Robotic Mobile Manip- ulation, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8 (2023) 3222–3229

2023
[143]

J. Hall, C. Rasmussen, J. Maciejowski, Modelling and control of nonlinear systems using Gaussian pro- cesses with partial model information, in: 2012 IEEE 51st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 43 2012, pp. 5266–5271

2012
[144]

Liu, Y.-S

H. Liu, Y.-S. Ong, X. Shen, J. Cai, When Gaussian Process Meets Big Data: A Review of Scalable GPs, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 31 (2020) 4405–4423

2020
[145]

T. F. Gonzalez, Clustering to minimize the maximum intercluster distance, Theoretical Computer Science 38 (1985) 293–306

1985
[146]

Feder, D

T. Feder, D. Greene, Optimal algorithms for approxi- mate clustering, in: Proceedings of the twentieth an- nual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, STOC ’88, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1988, pp. 434–444

1988
[147]

Lawrence, M

N. Lawrence, M. Seeger, R. Herbrich, Fast Sparse Gaussian Process Methods: The Informative Vector Machine, in: Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, volume 15, MIT Press, 2002

2002
[148]

Y. Lu, I. Cohen, X. S. Zhou, Q. Tian, Feature selec- tion using principal feature analysis, in: Proceedings of the 15th ACM international conference on Multime- dia, MM ’07, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2007, pp. 301–304

2007
[149]

Keerthi, W

S. Keerthi, W. Chu, A matching pursuit approach to sparse Gaussian process regression, in: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, NIPS’05, MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA, USA, 2005, pp. 643–650

2005
[150]

Seeger, Bayesian Gaussian Process Models: PAC- Bayesian Generalisation Error Bounds and Sparse Ap- proximations (2003)

M. Seeger, Bayesian Gaussian Process Models: PAC- Bayesian Generalisation Error Bounds and Sparse Ap- proximations (2003)

2003
[151]

Hayashi, M

K. Hayashi, M. Imaizumi, Y. Yoshida, On Ran- dom Subsampling of Gaussian Process Regression: A Graphon-Based Analysis, in: Proceedings of the Twenty Third International Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2020, pp. 2055– 2065

2020
[152]

S. Oh, Y. Xu, J. Choi, Explorative navigation of mo- bile sensor networks using sparse Gaussian processes, in: 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2010, pp. 3851–3856

2010
[153]

Y. Xu, J. Choi, S. Oh, Mobile Sensor Network Navi- gation Using Gaussian Processes With Truncated Ob- servations, IEEE Transactions on Robotics 27 (2011) 1118–1131

2011
[154]

Krause, A

A. Krause, A. Singh, C. Guestrin, Near-Optimal Sen- sor Placements in Gaussian Processes: Theory, Eﬃ- cient Algorithms and Empirical Studies, The Journal of Machine Learning Research 9 (2008) 235–284

2008
[155]

A. P. Bart´ ok, G. Cs´ anyi, Gaussian approximation po- tentials: A brief tutorial introduction, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 115 (2015) 1051–1057

2015
[156]

Wang, Y.-M

H. Wang, Y.-M. Zhang, J.-X. Mao, Sparse Gaussian process regression for multi-step ahead forecasting of wind gusts combining numerical weather predictions and on-site measurements, Journal of Wind Engineer- ing and Industrial Aerodynamics 220 (2022) 104873

2022
[157]

R. A. Jacobs, M. I. Jordan, S. J. Nowlan, G. E. Hinton, Adaptive Mixtures of Local Experts, Neural Compu- tation 3 (1991) 79–87

1991
[158]

Tresp, Mixtures of Gaussian Processes, in: Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol- ume 13, MIT Press, 2000

V. Tresp, Mixtures of Gaussian Processes, in: Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol- ume 13, MIT Press, 2000

2000
[159]

S. E. Yuksel, J. N. Wilson, P. D. Gader, Twenty Years of Mixture of Experts, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 23 (2012) 1177–1193

2012
[160]

C. E. Rasmussen, Z. Ghahramani, Inﬁnite Mixtures of Gaussian Process Experts, in: Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems, volume 14, MIT Press, 2001

2001
[161]

Meeds, S

E. Meeds, S. Osindero, An Alternative Inﬁnite Mix- ture Of Gaussian Process Experts, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 18, MIT Press, 2005

2005
[162]

C. Yuan, C. Neubauer, Variational Mixture of Gaus- sian Process Experts, in: Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, volume 21, Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2008

2008
[163]

Nguyen, E

T. Nguyen, E. Bonilla, Fast Allocation of Gaussian Process Experts, in: Proceedings of the 31st Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2014, pp. 145–153

2014
[164]

T. N. A. Nguyen, A. Bouzerdoum, S. L. Phung, Varia- tional inference for inﬁnite mixtures of sparse Gaussian processes through KL-correction, in: 2016 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2016, pp. 2579–2583

2016
[165]

Nguyen-Tuong, M

D. Nguyen-Tuong, M. Seeger, J. Peters, Model Learn- ing with Local Gaussian Process Regression, Ad- vanced Robotics 23 (2009) 2015–2034

2009
[166]

Nguyen-Tuong, J

D. Nguyen-Tuong, J. Peters, M. Seeger, Local Gaus- sian Process Regression for Real Time Online Model Learning, in: Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, volume 21, Curran Associates, Inc., 2008

2008
[167]

Nguyen-Tuong, J

D. Nguyen-Tuong, J. Peters, Incremental online spar- siﬁcation for model learning in real-time robot control, Neurocomputing 74 (2011) 1859–1867

2011
[168]

T. Chen, J. Ren, Bagging for Gaussian process regres- sion, Neurocomputing 72 (2009) 1605–1610

2009
[169]

S. Das, S. Roy, R. Sambasivan, Fast Gaussian Process Regression for Big Data, Big Data Research 14 (2018) 12–26

2018
[170]

Schneider, W

M. Schneider, W. Ertel, Robot Learning by Demon- stration with local Gaussian process regression, in: 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelli- gent Robots and Systems, 2010, pp. 255–260

2010
[171]

C. D. McKinnon, A. P. Schoellig, Learning multi- modal models for robot dynamics online with a mix- ture of Gaussian process experts, in: 2017 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE, Singapore, Singapore, 2017, pp. 322– 328

2017
[172]

G. E. Hinton, Training Products of Experts by Min- imizing Contrastive Divergence, Neural Computation 14 (2002) 1771–1800

2002
[173]

Tresp, A Bayesian Committee Machine, Neural Computation 12 (2000) 2719–2741

V. Tresp, A Bayesian Committee Machine, Neural Computation 12 (2000) 2719–2741

2000
[174]

Deisenroth, J

M. Deisenroth, J. W. Ng, Distributed Gaussian Pro- cesses, in: Proceedings of the 32nd International Con- ference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2015, pp. 1481– 1490

2015
[175]

Lederer, A

A. Lederer, A. J. O. Conejo, K. A. Maier, W. Xiao, J. Umlauft, S. Hirche, Gaussian Process-Based Real- Time Learning for Safety Critical Applications, in: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2021, pp. 6055–6064

2021
[176]

Urtasun, T

R. Urtasun, T. Darrell, Sparse probabilistic regres- sion for activity-independent human pose inference, in: 2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, IEEE, Anchorage, AK, USA, 2008, 44 pp. 1–8

2008
[177]

Z. Liu, L. Zhou, H. Leung, H. P. Shum, Kinect Posture Reconstruction Based on a Local Mixture of Gaussian Process Models, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 22 (2016) 2437–2450

2016
[178]

Szab´ o, H

B. Szab´ o, H. v. Zanten, An asymptotic analysis of dis- tributed nonparametric methods, Journal of Machine Learning Research 20 (2019) 1–30

2019
[179]

Trapp, R

M. Trapp, R. Peharz, F. Pernkopf, C. E. Rasmussen, Deep Structured Mixtures of Gaussian Processes, in: Proceedings of the Twenty Third International Con- ference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2020, pp. 2251–2261

2020
[180]

Qui˜ nonero-Candela, C

J. Qui˜ nonero-Candela, C. E. Rasmussen, A Unifying View of Sparse Approximate Gaussian Process Regres- sion, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 6 (2005) 1939–1959

2005
[181]

T. D. Bui, J. Yan, R. E. Turner, A unifying framework for Gaussian process pseudo-point approximations us- ing power expectation propagation, The Journal of Machine Learning Research 18 (2017) 3649–3720

2017
[182]

Bauer, M

M. Bauer, M. van der Wilk, C. E. Rasmussen, Under- standing Probabilistic Sparse Gaussian Process Ap- proximations, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 29, Curran Associates, Inc., 2016

2016
[183]

L´ azaro-Gredilla, A

M. L´ azaro-Gredilla, A. Figueiras-Vidal, Inter-domain Gaussian Processes for Sparse Inference using Induc- ing Features, in: Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, volume 22, Curran Associates, Inc., 2009

2009
[184]

van der Wilk, C

M. van der Wilk, C. E. Rasmussen, J. Hensman, Con- volutional Gaussian Processes, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

2017
[185]

Dutordoir, N

V. Dutordoir, N. Durrande, J. Hensman, Sparse Gaus- sian Processes with Spherical Harmonic Features, in: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2020, pp. 2793–2802

2020
[186]

Silverman, Some Aspects of the Spline Smoothing Approach to Non-Parametric Regression Curve Fit- ting, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society

B. Silverman, Some Aspects of the Spline Smoothing Approach to Non-Parametric Regression Curve Fit- ting, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 47 (1985) 1–52

1985
[187]

Wahba, X

G. Wahba, X. Lin, F. Gao, D. Xiang, R. Klein, B. Klein, The bias-variance tradeoﬀ and the ran- domized GACV, in: Proceedings of the 11th Inter- national Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS’98, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1998, pp. 620–626

1998
[188]

A. J. Smola, B. Sch¨ okopf, Sparse Greedy Matrix Ap- proximation for Machine Learning, in: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Ma- chine Learning, ICML ’00, Morgan Kaufmann Pub- lishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 2000, pp. 911– 918

2000
[189]

Csat´ o, M

L. Csat´ o, M. Opper, Sparse On-Line Gaussian Pro- cesses, Neural Computation 14 (2002) 641–668

2002
[190]

Seeger, C

M. Seeger, C. Williams, N. Lawrence, Fast Forward Selection to Speed Up Sparse Gaussian Process Re- gression, in: International Workshop on Artiﬁcial In- telligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2003, pp. 254–261

2003
[191]

Billingsley, Probability and Measure, Wiley Serie s in Probability and Statistics, wiley ed., 2012

P. Billingsley, Probability and Measure, Wiley Serie s in Probability and Statistics, wiley ed., 2012

2012
[192]

Snelson, Z

E. Snelson, Z. Ghahramani, Local and global sparse Gaussian process approximations, in: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artiﬁcial In- telligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2007, pp. 524–531

2007
[193]

Snelson, Z

E. Snelson, Z. Ghahramani, Sparse Gaussian Processes using Pseudo-inputs, in: Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, volume 18, MIT Press, 2005

2005
[194]

Schwaighofer, V

A. Schwaighofer, V. Tresp, Transductive and Inductive Methods for Approximate Gaussian Process Regres- sion, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 15, MIT Press, 2002

2002
[195]

Rossi, M

S. Rossi, M. Heinonen, E. Bonilla, Z. Shen, M. Filip- pone, Sparse Gaussian Processes Revisited: Bayesian Approaches to Inducing-Variable Approximations, in: Proceedings of The 24th International Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2021, pp. 1837–1845

2021
[196]

Scampicchio, S

A. Scampicchio, S. Chandrasekaran, M. N. Zeilinger, A Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach for Pseudo- Input selection in Sparse Gaussian Processes, IFAC- PapersOnLine 56 (2023) 10515–10520

2023
[197]

Y. Cao, M. A. Brubaker, D. J. Fleet, A. Hertzmann, Eﬃcient Optimization for Sparse Gaussian Process Regression, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 37 (2015) 2415–2427

2015
[198]

Yuan, Qi, A. H. Abdel-Gawad, T. P. Minka, Sparse- posterior Gaussian Processes for general likelihoods, 2012

2012
[199]

X. Wei, J. Min, J. Chai, Physically valid statistical models for human motion generation, ACM Transac- tions on Graphics 30 (2011) 19:1–19:10

2011
[200]

Ahmad, D

T. Ahmad, D. Zhang, C. Huang, Methodological framework for short-and medium-term energy, solar and wind power forecasting with stochastic-based ma- chine learning approach to monetary and energy policy applications, Energy 231 (2021) 120911

2021
[201]

K. Fan, Y. Wan, B. Jiang, State-of-charge dependent equivalent circuit model identiﬁcation for batteries us- ing sparse Gaussian process regression, Journal of Pro- cess Control 112 (2022) 1–11

2022
[202]

Y. Xue, G. Chen, Z. Li, G. Xue, W. Wang, Y. Liu, On- line identiﬁcation of a ship maneuvering model using a fast noisy input Gaussian process, Ocean Engineering 250 (2022) 110704

2022
[203]

T. N. Hoang, Q. M. Hoang, B. K. H. Low, A Unifying Framework of Anytime Sparse Gaussian Process Re- gression Models with Stochastic Variational Inference for Big Data, in: Proceedings of the 32nd Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2015, pp. 569–578

2015
[204]

Titsias, Variational Model Selection for Sparse Gaussian Process Regression, Technical Report, Uni- versity of Manchester, 2008

M. Titsias, Variational Model Selection for Sparse Gaussian Process Regression, Technical Report, Uni- versity of Manchester, 2008

2008
[205]

M. Titsias, Variational Learning of Inducing Variabl es in Sparse Gaussian Processes, in: Proceedings of the Twelth International Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelli- gence and Statistics, PMLR, 2009, pp. 567–574

2009
[206]

D. M. Blei, A. Kucukelbir, J. D. McAuliﬀe, Variational Inference: A Review for Statisticians, Journal of the American Statistical Association 112 (2017) 859–877

2017
[207]

Zhang, J

C. Zhang, J. B¨ utepage, H. Kjellstr¨ om, S. Mandt, Ad- vances in Variational Inference, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 41 (2019) 2008–2026

2019
[208]

Wilson, H

A. Wilson, H. Nickisch, Kernel Interpolation for Scal - able Structured Gaussian Processes (KISS-GP), in: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2015, pp. 1775–1784. 45

2015
[209]

A. G. Wilson, C. Dann, H. Nickisch, Thoughts on Mas- sively Scalable Gaussian Processes, 2015

2015
[210]

Gardner, G

J. Gardner, G. Pleiss, R. Wu, K. Weinberger, A. Wil- son, Product Kernel Interpolation for Scalable Gaus- sian Processes, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2018, pp. 1407–1416

2018
[211]

Evans, P

T. Evans, P. Nair, Scalable Gaussian Processes with Grid-Structured Eigenfunctions (GP-GRIEF), in: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2018, pp. 1417–1426

2018
[212]

Izmailov, A

P. Izmailov, A. Novikov, D. Kropotov, Scalable Gaus- sian Processes with Billions of Inducing Inputs via Tensor Train Decomposition, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Artiﬁcial In- telligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2018, pp. 726–735

2018
[213]

Wesel, K

F. Wesel, K. Batselier, Tensor-based Kernel Machines with Structured Inducing Points for Large and High- Dimensional Data, in: Proceedings of The 26th In- ternational Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2023, pp. 8308–8320

2023
[214]

G.-L. Tran, D. Milios, P. Michiardi, M. Filippone, Sparse within Sparse Gaussian Processes using Neigh- bor Information, in: Proceedings of the 38th Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2021, pp. 10369–10378

2021
[215]

Lalchand, W

V. Lalchand, W. Bruinsma, D. Burt, C. E. Rasmussen, Sparse Gaussian Process Hyperparameters: Optimize or Integrate?, Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 35 (2022) 16612–16623

2022
[216]

Hensman, A

J. Hensman, A. G. Matthews, M. Filippone, Z. Ghahramani, MCMC for Variationally Sparse Gaussian Processes, in: Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, volume 28, Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2015

2015
[217]

I. Paun, D. Husmeier, C. J. Torney, Stochastic vari- ational inference for scalable non-stationary Gaussian process regression, Statistics and Computing 33 (2023) 44

2023
[218]

A. G. d. G. Matthews, J. Hensman, R. Turner, Z. Ghahramani, On Sparse Variational Methods and the Kullback-Leibler Divergence between Stochastic Processes, in: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2016, pp. 231–239

2016
[219]

Cheng, B

C.-A. Cheng, B. Boots, Incremental variational spars e Gaussian process regression, in: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS’16, Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 2016, pp. 4410–4418

2016
[220]

Jankowiak, G

M. Jankowiak, G. Pleiss, J. Gardner, Parametric Gaussian Process Regressors, in: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2020, pp. 4702–4712

2020
[221]

Hensman, N

J. Hensman, N. Fusi, N. D. Lawrence, Gaussian Pro- cesses for Big Data, 2013

2013
[222]

M. D. Hoﬀman, D. M. Blei, C. Wang, J. Paisley, Stochastic Variational Inference, Journal of Machine Learning Research 14 (2013) 1303–1347

2013
[223]

Cheng, B

C.-A. Cheng, B. Boots, Variational Inference for Gaus- sian Process Models with Linear Complexity, in: Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol- ume 30, Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

2017
[224]

Salimbeni, C.-A

H. Salimbeni, C.-A. Cheng, B. Boots, M. Deisen- roth, Orthogonally Decoupled Variational Gaussian Processes, in: Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, volume 31, Curran Associates, Inc., 2018

2018
[225]

J. Shi, M. Titsias, A. Mnih, Sparse Orthogonal Vari- ational Inference for Gaussian Processes, in: Proceed- ings of the Twenty Third International Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2020, pp. 1932–1942

2020
[226]

Rogers, P

T. Rogers, P. Gardner, N. Dervilis, K. Worden, A. E. Maguire, E. Papatheou, E. J. Cross, Probabilistic modelling of wind turbine power curves with appli- cation of heteroscedastic Gaussian Process regression, Renewable Energy 148 (2020) 1124–1136

2020
[227]

McIntire, D

M. McIntire, D. Ratner, S. Ermon, Sparse Gaussian processes for Bayesian optimization, in: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Conference on Uncertainty in Ar- tiﬁcial Intelligence, UAI’16, AUAI Press, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 2016, pp. 517–526

2016
[228]

Ament, M

S. Ament, M. Amsler, D. R. Sutherland, M.-C. Chang, D. Guevarra, A. B. Connolly, J. M. Gregoire, M. O. Thompson, C. P. Gomes, R. B. van Dover, Au- tonomous materials synthesis via hierarchical active learning of nonequilibrium phase diagrams, Science Advances 7 (2021) eabg4930

2021
[229]

Salimbeni, M

H. Salimbeni, M. Deisenroth, Doubly Stochastic Vari- ational Inference for Deep Gaussian Processes, in: Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol- ume 30, Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

2017
[230]

D. Burt, C. E. Rasmussen, M. V. D. Wilk, Rates of Convergence for Sparse Variational Gaussian Process Regression, in: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2019, pp. 862–871

2019
[231]

D. R. Burt, C. E. Rasmussen, M. Van Der Wilk, Con- vergence of sparse variational inference in Gaussian processes regression, The Journal of Machine Learn- ing Research 21 (2020) 131:5120–131:5182

2020
[232]

Nieman, B

D. Nieman, B. Szabo, H. v. Zanten, Contraction rates for sparse variational approximations in Gaussian pro- cess regression, Journal of Machine Learning Research 23 (2022) 1–26

2022
[233]

J. H. Huggins, T. Campbell, M. Kasprzak, T. Broder- ick, Scalable Gaussian Process Inference with Finite- data Mean and Variance Guarantees, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Conference on Ar- tiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2019, pp. 796–805

2019
[234]

L´ azaro-Gredilla, J

M. L´ azaro-Gredilla, J. Qui˜ nnero-Candela, C. E. Ras- mussen, An&#237, b. R. Figueiras-Vidal, Sparse Spectrum Gaussian Process Regression, Journal of Machine Learning Research 11 (2010) 1865–1881

2010
[235]

Rahimi, B

A. Rahimi, B. Recht, Random Features for Large- Scale Kernel Machines, in: Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, volume 20, Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2007

2007
[236]

Rahimi, B

A. Rahimi, B. Recht, Uniform approximation of func- tions with random bases, in: 2008 46th Annual Aller- ton Conference on Communication, Control, and Com- puting, 2008, pp. 555–561

2008
[237]

Q. Le, T. Sarlos, A. Smola, Fastfood - Computing Hilbert Space Expansions in loglinear time, in: Pro- ceedings of the 30th International Conference on Ma- chine Learning, PMLR, 2013, pp. 244–252

2013
[238]

Z. Yang, A. Wilson, A. Smola, L. Song, A la Carte – Learning Fast Kernels, in: Proceedings of the Eigh- 46 teenth International Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelli- gence and Statistics, PMLR, 2015, pp. 1098–1106

2015
[239]

Y. Gal, R. Turner, Improving the Gaussian Process Sparse Spectrum Approximation by Representing Un- certainty in Frequency Inputs, in: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2015, pp. 655–664

2015
[240]

L. S. L. Tan, V. M. H. Ong, D. J. Nott, A. Jasra, Vari- ational inference for sparse spectrum Gaussian process regression, Statistics and Computing 26 (2016) 1243– 1261

2016
[241]

Hensman, N

J. Hensman, N. Durrande, A. Solin, Variational Fourier Features for Gaussian Processes, Journal of Machine Learning Research 18 (2018) 1–52

2018
[242]

Sriperumbudur, Z

B. Sriperumbudur, Z. Szabo, Optimal Rates for Ran- dom Fourier Features, in: Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, volume 28, Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2015

2015
[243]

A. Rudi, L. Rosasco, Generalization Properties of Learning with Random Features, in: Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, volume 30, Cur- ran Associates, Inc., 2017

2017
[244]

Scampicchio, E

A. Scampicchio, E. Arcari, M. N. Zeilinger, Error Analysis of Regularized Trigonometric Linear Regres- sion With Unbounded Sampling: A Statistical Learn- ing Viewpoint, IEEE Control Systems Letters 7 (2023) 3066–3071

2023
[245]

Gijsberts, G

A. Gijsberts, G. Metta, Real-time model learning using Incremental Sparse Spectrum Gaussian Process Regression, Neural Networks 41 (2013) 59–69

2013
[246]

B. C. Levy, Karhunen Loeve Expansion of Gaussian Processes, in: B. C. Levy (Ed.), Principles of Sig- nal Detection and Parameter Estimation, Springer US, Boston, MA, 2008, pp. 1–47

2008
[247]

G. Picci, On the optimality of the Karhunen-Lo` eve expansion, in: Ricordo di Antonio Lepschy, Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Adunanza Ac- cademica del 26 Novembre 2005, Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Venezia, 2006

2005
[248]

Mercer, A

J. Mercer, A. R. Forsyth, XVI. Functions of positive and negative type, and their connection the theory of integral equations, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 209 (1997) 415–446

1997
[249]

H. Zhu, C. K. I. Williams, R. Rohwer, M. Morciniec, Gaussian regression and optimal ﬁnite dimensional lin- ear models, 1997

1997
[250]

Ferrari-Trecate, C

G. Ferrari-Trecate, C. Williams, M. Opper, Finite- Dimensional Approximation of Gaussian Processes, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 11, MIT Press, 1998

1998
[251]

Fasshauer, Positive deﬁnite kernels: past, presen t and future, Dolomites Research Notes on Approxima- tion (2011)

G. Fasshauer, Positive deﬁnite kernels: past, presen t and future, Dolomites Research Notes on Approxima- tion (2011)

2011
[252]

E. Wong, B. Hajek, Stochastic Processes in Engineer- ing Systems, Springer Texts in Electrical Engineering, Springer, New York, NY, 1985

1985
[253]

Y. M. Marzouk, H. N. Najm, Dimensionality reduc- tion and polynomial chaos acceleration of Bayesian in- ference in inverse problems, Journal of Computational Physics 228 (2009) 1862–1902

2009
[254]

H. Peng, Y. Qi, EigenGP: Gaussian process mod- els with adaptive eigenfunctions, in: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artiﬁcial Intel- ligence, IJCAI’15, AAAI Press, Buenos Aires, Ar- gentina, 2015, pp. 3763–3769

2015
[255]

Solin, S

A. Solin, S. S¨ arkk¨ a, Hilbert space methods for reduced-rank Gaussian process regression, Statistics and Computing 30 (2020) 419–446

2020
[256]

Riutort-Mayol, P.-C

G. Riutort-Mayol, P.-C. B¨ urkner, M. R. Andersen, A. Solin, A. Vehtari, Practical Hilbert space approx- imate Bayesian Gaussian processes for probabilistic programming, Statistics and Computing 33 (2022) 17

2022
[257]

Solin, M

A. Solin, M. Kok, N. Wahlstr¨ om, T. B. Sch¨ on, S. S¨ arkk¨ a, Modeling and Interpolation of the Am- bient Magnetic Field by Gaussian Processes, IEEE Transactions on Robotics 34 (2018) 1112–1127

2018
[258]

Williams, M

C. Williams, M. Seeger, Using the Nystr¨ om Method to Speed Up Kernel Machines, in: Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, volume 13, MIT Press, 2000

2000
[259]

S. Sun, J. Zhao, J. Zhu, A review of Nystr¨ om methods for large-scale machine learning, Information Fusion 26 (2015) 36–48

2015
[260]

Bartels, W

S. Bartels, W. Boomsma, J. Frellsen, D. Garreau, Kernel-Matrix Determinant Estimates from stopped Cholesky Decomposition, Journal of Machine Learn- ing Research 24 (2023) 1–57

2023
[261]

Bartels, K

S. Bartels, K. Stensbo-Smidt, P. Moreno-Munoz, W. Boomsma, J. Frellsen, S. Hauberg, Adaptive Cholesky Gaussian Processes, in: Proceedings of The 26th International Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2023, pp. 408–452

2023
[262]

S. Fine, K. Scheinberg, Eﬃcient SVM training using low-rank kernel representations, Journal of Machine Learning Research 2 (2001) 243–264

2001
[263]

F. Bach, M. Jordan, Kernel Independent Compo- nent Analysis, Journal of Machine Learning Research (2002)

2002
[264]

C. K. I. Williams, C. E. Rasmussen, A. Schwaighofer, V. Tresp, Observations on the Nystr¨ om Method for Gaussian Processes, Technical Report, University of Edinburgh, 2002

2002
[265]

F. Bach, M. Jordan, Predictive low-rank decomposi- tion for kernel methods, in: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning, ICML ’05, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2005, pp. 33–40

2005
[266]

Harbrecht, M

H. Harbrecht, M. Peters, R. Schneider, On the low- rank approximation by the pivoted Cholesky decom- position, Applied Numerical Mathematics 62 (2012) 428–440

2012
[267]

Sch¨ afer, T

F. Sch¨ afer, T. J. Sullivan, H. Owhadi, Compression, Inversion, and Approximate PCA of Dense Kernel Ma- trices at Near-Linear Computational Complexity, Mul- tiscale Modeling & Simulation 19 (2021) 688–730

2021
[268]

Drineas, M

P. Drineas, M. W. Mahoney, On the Nystrom Method for Approximating a Gram Matrix for Im- proved Kernel-Based Learning, Journal of Machine Learning Research 6 (2005) 2153–2175

2005
[269]

Kumar, M

S. Kumar, M. Mohri, A. Talwalkar, Sampling Methods for the Nystr¨ om Method, Journal of Machine Learning Research 13 (2012) 981–1006

2012
[270]

Zhang, I

K. Zhang, I. W. Tsang, J. T. Kwok, Improved Nystr¨ om low-rank approximation and error analysis, in: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning, ICML ’08, Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2008, pp. 1232– 1239. 47

2008
[271]

Drineas, M

P. Drineas, M. Magdon-Ismail, M. W. Mahoney, D. P. Woodruﬀ, Fast Approximation of Matrix Coherence and Statistical Leverage, Journal of Machine Learning Research 13 (2012)

2012
[272]

Alaoui, M

A. Alaoui, M. Mahoney, Fast Randomized Kernel Ridge Regression with Statistical Guarantees, in: Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol- ume 28, Curran Associates, Inc., 2015

2015
[273]

Musco, C

C. Musco, C. Musco, Recursive Sampling for the Nys- trom Method, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

2017
[274]

Halko, P

N. Halko, P. G. Martinsson, J. Tropp, Finding Struc- ture with Randomness: Probabilistic Algorithms for Constructing Approximate Matrix Decompositions, SIAM Review 53 (2011) 217–288

2011
[275]

Martinsson, J

P.-G. Martinsson, J. A. Tropp, Randomized numeri- cal linear algebra: Foundations and algorithms, Acta Numerica 29 (2020) 403–572

2020
[276]

Banerjee, D

A. Banerjee, D. B. Dunson, S. T. Tokdar, Eﬃ- cient Gaussian process regression for large datasets, Biometrika 100 (2013) 75–89

2013
[277]

Gittens, M

A. Gittens, M. Mahoney, Revisiting the Nystrom method for improved large-scale machine learning, in: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2013, pp. 567–575

2013
[278]

R. Jin, T. Yang, M. Mahdavi, Y.-F. Li, Z.-H. Zhou, Improved Bound for the Nystrom’s Method and its Application to Kernel Classiﬁcation, IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory 59 (2013) 6939–6949

2013
[279]

A. Rudi, R. Camoriano, L. Rosasco, Less is More: Nystr¨ om Computational Regularization, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 28, Curran Associates, Inc., 2015

2015
[280]

Cortes, M

C. Cortes, M. Mohri, A. Talwalkar, On the Impact of Kernel Approximation on Learning Accuracy, in: Pro- ceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Statistics, JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2010, pp. 113–120

2010
[281]

Bach, Sharp analysis of low-rank kernel matrix approximations, in: Proceedings of the 26th An- nual Conference on Learning Theory, PMLR, 2013, pp

F. Bach, Sharp analysis of low-rank kernel matrix approximations, in: Proceedings of the 26th An- nual Conference on Learning Theory, PMLR, 2013, pp. 185–209

2013
[282]

Cutajar, M

K. Cutajar, M. Osborne, J. Cunningham, M. Filip- pone, Preconditioning Kernel Matrices, in: Proceed- ings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2016, pp. 2529–2538

2016
[283]

A. Rudi, L. Carratino, L. Rosasco, FALKON: An Op- timal Large Scale Kernel Method, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, Curran Associates, Inc., 2017

2017
[284]

Gardner, G

J. Gardner, G. Pleiss, K. Q. Weinberger, D. Bindel, A. G. Wilson, GPyTorch: Blackbox Matrix-Matrix Gaussian Process Inference with GPU Acceleration, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, volume 31, Curran Associates, Inc., 2018, pp. 7576–7586

2018
[285]

Wenger, G

J. Wenger, G. Pleiss, P. Hennig, J. Cunningham, J. Gardner, Preconditioning for Scalable Gaussian Process Hyperparameter Optimization, in: Proceed- ings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2022, pp. 23751–23780

2022
[286]

Hestenes, E

M. Hestenes, E. Stiefel, Methods of conjugate gradi- ents for solving linear systems, Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards 49 (1952) 409

1952
[287]

W. E. Leithead, Y. Zhang, O(N 2)-Operation Ap- proximation of Covariance Matrix Inverse in Gaussian Process Regression Based on Quasi-Newton BFGS Method, Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation 36 (2007) 367–380

2007
[288]

Skilling, Bayesian numerical analysis, Physics an d Probability (1993) 207–221

J. Skilling, Bayesian numerical analysis, Physics an d Probability (1993) 207–221

1993
[289]

Gibbs, D

M. Gibbs, D. Mackay, Eﬃcient implementation of gaussian processes, Technical Report, Cavendish Lab- oratory, Cambridge, UK, 1997

1997
[290]

Gibbs, Bayesian Gaussian Processes for Regression and Classiﬁcation, PhD Thesis, University of Cam- bridge, 1997

M. Gibbs, Bayesian Gaussian Processes for Regression and Classiﬁcation, PhD Thesis, University of Cam- bridge, 1997

1997
[291]

Girard, Un algorithme simple et rapide pour la val- idation crois´ ee g´ en´ eralis´ ee sur des probl` emes de grande taille, Technical Report, 1987

D. Girard, Un algorithme simple et rapide pour la val- idation crois´ ee g´ en´ eralis´ ee sur des probl` emes de grande taille, Technical Report, 1987

1987
[292]

M. Hutchinson, A Stochastic Estimator of the Trace of the Inﬂuence Matrix for Laplacian Smoothing Splines, Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Com- putation 18 (1989) 1059–1076

1989
[293]

Ubaru, J

S. Ubaru, J. Chen, Y. Saad, Fast Estimation of \ tr(f(A))\ via Stochastic Lanczos Quadrature, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 38 (2017) 1075–1099

2017
[294]

K. Dong, D. Eriksson, H. Nickisch, D. Bindel, A. G. Wilson, Scalable log determinants for Gaussian pro- cess kernel learning, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (2017)

2017
[295]

G. H. Golub, C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computa- tions, Johns Hopkins studies in the mathematical sci- ences, fourth edition ed., The Johns Hopkins Univer- sity Press, Baltimore, 2013

2013
[296]

Zhang, W

Y. Zhang, W. E. Leithead, Approximate implemen- tation of the logarithm of the matrix determinant in Gaussian process regression, Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 77 (2007) 329–348

2007
[297]

Davies, Eﬀective implementation of Gaussian pro- cess regression for machine learning, PhD Thesis, Uni- versity of Cambridge, 2015

A. Davies, Eﬀective implementation of Gaussian pro- cess regression for machine learning, PhD Thesis, Uni- versity of Cambridge, 2015

2015
[298]

Artemev, D

A. Artemev, D. R. Burt, M. v. d. Wilk, Tighter Bounds on the Log Marginal Likelihood of Gaussian Process Regression Using Conjugate Gradients, in: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2021, pp. 362–372

2021
[299]

Filippone, R

M. Filippone, R. Engler, Enabling scalable stochasti c gradient-based inference for Gaussian processes by em- ploying the Unbiased LInear System SolvEr (ULISSE), in: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2015, pp. 1015–1024

2015
[300]

Potapczynski, L

A. Potapczynski, L. Wu, D. Biderman, G. Pleiss, J. P. Cunningham, Bias-Free Scalable Gaussian Processes via Randomized Truncations, in: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2021, pp. 8609–8619

2021

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

D. Q. Mayne, Model predictive control: Recent de- velopments and future promise, Automatica 50 (2014) 2967–2986

2014

[2] [2]

Schwenzer, M

M. Schwenzer, M. Ay, T. Bergs, D. Abel, Review on model predictive control: an engineering perspective, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 117 (2021) 1327–1349

2021

[3] [3]

J. B. Rawlings, D. Q. Mayne, M. Diehl, Model Predic- tive Control: Theory, Computation, and Design, Nob Hill Publishing, 2017

2017

[4] [4]

Hewing, K

L. Hewing, K. P. Wabersich, M. Menner, M. N. Zeilinger, Learning-Based Model Predictive Control: Toward Safe Learning in Control, Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 3 (2020) 269–296

2020

[5] [5]

Mesbah, K

A. Mesbah, K. P. Wabersich, A. P. Schoellig, M. N. Zeilinger, S. Lucia, T. A. Badgwell, J. A. Paulson, Fusion of Machine Learning and MPC under Uncer- tainty: What Advances Are on the Horizon?, in: 2022 American Control Conference (ACC), 2022, pp. 342– 357

2022

[6] [6]

Bemporad, M

A. Bemporad, M. Morari, Robust model predictive control: A survey, in: A. Garulli, A. Tesi (Eds.), Ro- bustness in identiﬁcation and control, Springer, Lon- don, 1999, pp. 207–226

1999

[7] [7]

Kouvaritakis, M

B. Kouvaritakis, M. Cannon, Model Predictive Con- trol, Advanced Textbooks in Control and Signal Pro- cessing, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016

2016

[8] [8]

Milanese, A

M. Milanese, A. Vicino, Optimal estimation theory for dynamic systems with set membership uncertainty: An overview, Automatica 27 (1991) 997–1009. 39

1991