We wrote about the "what, when, and why?" of t-processes: http://proceedings.mlr.press/v33/shah14.pdf . Implementation isn't much more difficult. There are nuanced trade-offs. The uncertainty and dependencies are subtly different and sometimes preferable, the noise model is less interpretable. https://twitter.com/GarridoMerchan/status/1342899907989032961 …
-
Ten tweet jest niedostępny.
-
W odpowiedzi do @andrewgwils
Which situations do you think a t-process would be preferable over GP with Bayesian treatment of scale?
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @azhir_io
We address the question in depth in the paper. It's actually quite subtle and hard to give a short take. They're mostly useful when you have a small number of observations (e.g. BayesOpt with a really expensive objective). But there is more to the story.
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony -
W odpowiedzi do @andrewgwils
In 5.1.1 you discuss the LL and MSE for TP vs GP. The results on spatial and wine data were particularly noteworthy; with the TP having lower MSE scores and ridiculously high LL scores. I wasn't sure why this was the case.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @azhir_io
It's a different model. The uncertainty representation is different. After optimizing the marginal likelihood for each, the kernel hypers will also be different. The noise model is subtly different. The paper discusses the differences.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 2 polubione
Got it, thanks! That clears things up. I'll spend more time carefully re-reading the discussion to get a better understanding of the subtle differences
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.
to 
