ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
This paper is an attempt to bridge the conceptual gaps between researchers working on the two widely used approaches based on positive definite kernels: Bayesian learning or inference using Gaussian processes on the one side, and frequentist kernel methods based on reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces on the other. It is widely known in machine learning that these two formalisms are closely related; for instance, the estimator of kernel ridge regression is identical to the posterior mean of Gaussian process regression. However, they have been studied and developed almost independently by two essentially separate communities, and this makes it difficult to seamlessly transfer results between them. Our aim is to overcome this potential difficulty. To this end, we review several old and new results and concepts from either side, and juxtapose algorithmic quantities from each framework to highlight close similarities. We also provide discussions on subtle philosophical and theoretical differences between the two approaches.
We investigate the connections between sparse approximation methods for making kernel methods and Gaussian processes (GPs) scalable to massive data, focusing on the Nystrom method and the Sparse Variational Gaussian Processes (SVGP). While sparse app
Gaussian processes (GPs) provide a gold standard for performance in online settings, such as sample-efficient control and black box optimization, where we need to update a posterior distribution as we acquire data in a sequential fashion. However, up
Gaussian process regression is a widely-applied method for function approximation and uncertainty quantification. The technique has gained popularity recently in the machine learning community due to its robustness and interpretability. The mathemati
Gaussian processes (GPs) are used to make medical and scientific decisions, including in cardiac care and monitoring of carbon dioxide emissions. But the choice of GP kernel is often somewhat arbitrary. In particular, uncountably many kernels typical
We define deep kernel processes in which positive definite Gram matrices are progressively transformed by nonlinear kernel functions and by sampling from (inverse) Wishart distributions. Remarkably, we find that deep Gaussian processes (DGPs), Bayesi