Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Understanding Probabilistic Sparse Gaussian Process Approximations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1606.04820 v2 pith:4MT7S6QJ submitted 2016-06-15 stat.ML

classification stat.ML
keywords approximationsmethodsgaussianpracticalsparseanalyticallyapplicationbehave
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Good sparse approximations are essential for practical inference in Gaussian Processes as the computational cost of exact methods is prohibitive for large datasets. The Fully Independent Training Conditional (FITC) and the Variational Free Energy (VFE) approximations are two recent popular methods. Despite superficial similarities, these approximations have surprisingly different theoretical properties and behave differently in practice. We thoroughly investigate the two methods for regression both analytically and through illustrative examples, and draw conclusions to guide practical application.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Machine-learnt potential highlights melting and freezing of aluminium nanoparticles

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new Bayesian force field for aluminium predicts icosahedral nanoparticle stability up to ~2,000 atoms, decahedral stability up to ~25,000 atoms, and fcc beyond, with melting/freezing hysteresis at 100 K/ns.

  2. Evaluating Uncertainty in Deep Gaussian Processes

    stat.ML 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    DSPPs achieve the best in-distribution calibration, but deep ensembles are more robust to synthetic feature shifts than either deep GP method.

Pith tools