The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Generalized Product of Experts for Automatic and Principled Fusion of Gaussian Process Predictions
Open accessAbstract
In this work, we propose a generalized product of experts (gPoE) framework for combining the predictions of multiple probabilistic models. We identify four desirable properties that are important for scalability, expressiveness and robustness, when learning and inferring with a combination of multiple models. Through analysis and experiments, we show that gPoE of Gaussian processes (GP) have these qualities, while no other existing combination schemes satisfy all of them at the same time. The resulting GP-gPoE is highly scalable as individual GP experts can be independently learned in parallel; very expressive as the way experts are combined depends on the input rather than fixed; the combined prediction is still a valid probabilistic model with natural interpretation; and finally robust to unreliable predictions from individual experts.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“when p ( z ) and ˜ q ( z | x i ) are Gaussian there is a simple analytical solution: a product of Gaussian experts is itself Gaussian [6] with mean µ = ( ∑ i µ i T i )( ∑ i T i ) -1 and covariance V = ( ∑ i T i ) -1”
From Multimodal Generative Models for Scalable Weakly-Supervised Learning (2018) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 5 · Cited by 116
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [2][2] Breiman, Leo. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning , 24 (2): 123140, 1996. -
- [4][4] R. Urtasun. Motion Models for Robust 3D Human Body Tracking. Phd Thesis 3541, EPFL 2006 -
- [6][6] E. Snelson and Z. Ghahramani. Sparse gaussian processes using pseudo-inputs. NIPS 18 , pp. 1257-1264. 2006. -
- [7][7] Y. Cao, M. Brubaker, D. J. Fleet, A. Hertzmann. Efficient Optimization for Sparse Gaussian Process Regression NIPS 2013 , 2013. -
- [8][8] James Hensman, Nicolo Fusi, Neil D. Lawrence. Gaussian Processes for Big Data NIPS 2013 , 2013.
Metadata
- Authors
- Cao, Y., & Fleet, D. J.
- ORCID
- Fleet, David J.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2014
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1410.7827
- OpenAlex
- W241901432
- Cited by
- 116
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Target Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
- Keywords
- Gaussian processes, prediction fusion, ensemble learning, scalability
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