The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Most likely heteroscedastic Gaussian process regression
Abstract
This paper presents a novel Gaussian process (GP) approach to regression with input-dependent noise rates. We follow Goldberg et al.'s approach and model the noise variance using a second GP in addition to the GP governing the noise-free output value. In contrast to Goldberg et al., however, we do not use a Markov chain Monte Carlo method to approximate the posterior noise variance but a most likely noise approach. The resulting model is easy to implement and can directly be used in combination with various existing extensions of the standard GPs such as sparse approximations. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world data, including a challenging perception problem in robotics, show the effectiveness of most likely heteroscedastic GP regression.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning
Rasmussen, C. E., & Williams, C. K. I. (2005) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001 · Cited by 11,705
Some aspects of the spline smoothing approach to non-parametric regression curve fitting
Silverman, B. W. (1985) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1985.tb01327.x · Cited by 1,117
Cited by
Frazier, P. I. (2018) · Recent Advances in Optimization and Modeling of Contemporary Problems · doi:10.1287/educ.2018.0188 · Cited by 826
Advances in surrogate based modeling, feasibility analysis, and optimization: A review
Bhosekar, A., & Ierapetritou, M. (2018) · Computers & Chemical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.09.017 · Cited by 707
Assessment and Validation of Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Molecular Atomization Energies
Hansen, K., Montavon, G., Biegler, F., Fazli, S., Rupp, M., Scheffler, M., von Lilienfeld, O. A., Tkatchenko, A., & Müller, K.-R. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/ct400195d · Cited by 613
Model learning for robot control: A survey
Nguyen-Tuong, D., & Peters, J. (2011) · Cognitive Processing · doi:10.1007/s10339-011-0404-1 · Cited by 503
GP-BayesFilters: Bayesian filtering using Gaussian process prediction and observation models
Ko, J., & Fox, D. (2009) · Autonomous Robots · doi:10.1007/s10514-009-9119-x · Cited by 335
Metadata
- Authors
- Kersting, K., Plagemann, C., Pfaff, P., & Burgard, W.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2007-06-20
- Pages
- 393-400
- OpenAlex
- W2149764047
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.07
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Most likely heteroscedastic Gaussian process regression. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1273496.1273546
- The paper
- Kersting, K., Plagemann, C., Pfaff, P., & Burgard, W. (2007). Most likely heteroscedastic Gaussian process regression. Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning. https://doi.org/10.1145/1273496.1273546
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.