3.8 Proceedings Paper

Wasserstein-Splitting Gaussian Process Regression for Heterogeneous Online Bayesian Inference

出版社

IEEE
DOI: 10.1109/IROS51168.2021.9636357

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) fellowship program
  2. Office of Naval Research [N00014-18-1-2627, N00014-19-1-2194]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The method overcomes scalability issues of Gaussian processes for large sample sizes and performance degradation for non-stationary or spatially heterogeneous data by utilizing variational free energy approximations and online expectation propagation steps. Introducing a local splitting step creates an ensemble of sparse GPs that adapt to the data over time. Compared to other Gaussian process regression methods, this approach often achieves competitive or superior predictive performance.
Gaussian processes (GPs) are a well-known non-parametric Bayesian inference technique, but they suffer from scalability problems for large sample sizes, and their performance can degrade for non-stationary or spatially heterogeneous data. In this work, we seek to overcome these issues through (i) employing variational free energy approximations of GPs operating in tandem with online expectation propagation steps; and (ii) introducing a local splitting step which instantiates a new GP whenever the posterior distribution changes significantly as quantified by the Wasserstein metric over posterior distributions. Over time, then, this yields an ensemble of sparse GPs which may be updated incrementally, and adapts to locality, heterogeneity, and non-stationarity in training data. We provide a 1-dimensional example to illustrate the motivation behind our approach, and compare the performance of our approach to other Gaussian process methods across various data sets, which often achieves competitive, if not superior predictive performance, relative to other locality-based GP regression methods in which hyperparameters are learned in an online manner.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据