Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 189 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 46 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 35 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 40 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 103 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 207 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 451 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 38 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Fast Riemannian-manifold Hamiltonian Monte Carlo for hierarchical Gaussian-process models (2511.06407v1)

Published 9 Nov 2025 in stat.ML, cs.LG, and stat.CO

Abstract: Hierarchical Bayesian models based on Gaussian processes are considered useful for describing complex nonlinear statistical dependencies among variables in real-world data. However, effective Monte Carlo algorithms for inference with these models have not yet been established, except for several simple cases. In this study, we show that, compared with the slow inference achieved with existing program libraries, the performance of Riemannian-manifold Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (RMHMC) can be drastically improved by optimising the computation order according to the model structure and dynamically programming the eigendecomposition. This improvement cannot be achieved when using an existing library based on a naive automatic differentiator. We numerically demonstrate that RMHMC effectively samples from the posterior, allowing the calculation of model evidence, in a Bayesian logistic regression on simulated data and in the estimation of propensity functions for the American national medical expenditure data using several Bayesian multiple-kernel models. These results lay a foundation for implementing effective Monte Carlo algorithms for analysing real-world data with Gaussian processes, and highlight the need to develop a customisable library set that allows users to incorporate dynamically programmed objects and finely optimises the mode of automatic differentiation depending on the model structure.

Summary

  • The paper presents a structure-aware RMHMC approach that significantly improves sampling efficiency for hierarchical Gaussian process models.
  • It leverages a soft-absolute Hessian metric and dynamic eigendecomposition to reduce computational complexity and enhance posterior exploration.
  • Empirical results demonstrate rapid mixing and accurate Bayesian marginal likelihood estimation compared to conventional methods like NUT-HMC.

Efficient RMHMC for Hierarchical Gaussian Process Models

Introduction

The presented work develops a highly efficient implementation of Riemannian-manifold Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (RMHMC) for inference in hierarchical Gaussian process (GP) models, emphasizing practical strategies to overcome computational bottlenecks. Hierarchical GP-based Bayesian models are frequently employed for modeling complex nonlinear statistical dependencies but pose significant challenges for Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) inference due to non-log-concave posteriors and high-dimensional parameter spaces. Existing RMHMC algorithms, while theoretically promising, suffer from poor scaling and performance in these hierarchical contexts, especially when implemented naively using general-purpose automatic differentiation libraries.

Hierarchical GP Model Representation and Challenges

Hierarchical GP models are formulated such that the likelihood for each data sample is parameterized by multiple nonlinear functions, each modeled as sums of GPs with kernel hyperparameters. Real-world applications—such as modeling conditional means and variances in medical expenditure data—necessitate multiple GPs and non-Gaussian likelihoods, thus presenting posteriors with significant curvature heterogeneity, directionality, and non-log-concavity. Efficient sampling from such posteriors is impractical using vanilla HMC or conventional implementations of RMHMC.

A key technical challenge is efficient representation and sampling when the parameterization includes both function values (often represented via random Fourier features) and kernel hyperparameters. Naive differentiation approaches for the Hamiltonian, especially for metrics involving higher-order derivatives, incur prohibitive O(Nd3)O(Nd^3) costs for sample size NN and parameter dimension dd.

RMHMC with Soft-Absolute Hessian Metric

The RMHMC implementation utilizes the soft-absolute transformation of the negative log-posterior Hessian as the metric, enabling applicability to non-log-concave posteriors. Given the Hessian H(q)H(q), the metric G(q)G(q) is constructed via spectral decomposition, replacing eigenvalues λi\lambda_i with g(λi)λig(\lambda_i) \approx |\lambda_i|, and preserving eigenvectors. This choice guarantees positive-definiteness and aligns leapfrog proposal directions with the intrinsic geometry of the posterior.

Critical to this work is the adoption of Betancourt’s formula for Hamiltonian derivatives, which leverages cached eigensystem computations and the structure of the Hessian to keep per-step complexity to O(d3)O(d^3). However, the order of computation and caching strategy are essential; automatic differentiation libraries do not exploit this structure, resulting in severe redundancy.

Structure-Aware Redundancy Removal and Dynamic Eigendecomposition

The implementation reorganizes gradient and metric computations according to model structure—identifying where forward or reverse mode differentiation is optimal, exploiting sparsity, batching, and matrix operation efficiencies. For model dimensions dd scaling as NrN^r (with rr dependent on the number of GPs and features), the computational complexity is reduced to O(dω(r)+d1+r)O(d^{\omega(r)} + d^{1+r}) for mathematical exponent ω(r)\omega(r), compared to the naive O(Nd3)O(Nd^3).

Dynamic programming for eigendecomposition further accelerates RMHMC. Rather than decomposing the Hessian from scratch at each leapfrog step, the eigensystem is updated via Jacobi method or related approaches, exploiting the temporal continuity between successive parameter states. For practical high-dimensional models, dynamic eigendecomposition reduces wall-clock time, especially as model size dd increases, by minimizing the number of sweeps and leveraging GPU parallelism.

Numerical Results

Empirical comparisons reveal that the proposed implementation is an order of magnitude faster than RMHMC based on Hamiltorch (a PyTorch-based library), confirming the dominance of structure-dependent gradient optimization over eigendecomposition improvements for small and moderate dd. For large models, dynamic eigendecomposition provides additional speed-ups. The RMHMC implementation achieves rapid mixing, effective exploration, and reliable computation of model evidence (Bayesian marginal likelihood, BME) in both synthetic logistic regression tasks and substantive causal inference applications on the NMES medical expenditure survey data.

When compared to NUT-HMC (No-U-Turn HMC with Euclidean metric), RMHMC avoids getting trapped in narrow, high-density regions—demonstrating that data-adaptive metrics are critical for exploration of hierarchical GP posteriors. Moreover, observed posteriors are singular, with non-Gaussian curvature, invalidating Laplace approximations for BME computation; nevertheless, the MC-integrated RMHMC reliably estimates BME within statistically acceptable margins.

Implications and Future Directions

This work establishes that RMHMC sampling in hierarchical GP models is only viable with structure-aware implementations that leverage both analytical simplifications and hardware-specific optimizations (such as GPU parallelism and dynamic matrix decomposition). The finding that automatic differentiation is insufficient without custom computational ordering has broad implications: future software libraries for probabilistic inference must expose lower-level primitives or optimization strategies to support efficient RMHMC, particularly for models with complex dependencies and non-Gaussian likelihoods.

The demonstrated efficiency also opens the door to the application of RMHMC-based inference in large-scale real-world domains, including biostatistics and econometrics, where unbiased posterior averaging is required. The structure-aware enhancements can be extended further, for instance, by combining reversible jump mechanisms for variable selection or integrating RMHMC within sequential Monte Carlo frameworks for time-series models.

However, the work is primarily restricted to sum-of-low-dimensional GPs and one-dimensional kernels; generalization to deep kernel learning or high-dimensional nonstationary models will require additional advancements, particularly in scalable eigendecomposition and gradient handling. The potential integration with doubly-robust debiased machine learning remains speculative due to singularity concerns in model posteriors.

Conclusion

The paper provides a comprehensive solution to the longstanding computational inefficiency in RMHMC sampling for hierarchical GP models, combining theoretical insight with practical optimization—most notably, structure-dependent computation and dynamic eigensystem maintenance. These innovations directly address scalability and accuracy challenges for MCMC inference in hierarchical Bayesian modeling, forming a foundational basis for future algorithmic and software development in probabilistic machine learning.

Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Explain it Like I'm 14

Overview

This paper is about making a powerful statistical tool run much faster. The tool helps scientists build and test complex models that learn smooth relationships in data, called Gaussian processes. The authors show how to speed up a special sampling method, Riemannian-manifold Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (RMHMC), so it works well on these complex models without losing accuracy.

Key Questions

The paper asks three main questions, in simple terms:

  • Can we make RMHMC fast enough to use on real-world, complicated models that include many smooth functions stacked together (hierarchical Gaussian processes)?
  • What parts of the current software slow things down, and how can we fix that?
  • Does the faster method really work better on both fake (simulated) data and real medical data?

Methods and Approach

Think of statistical inference as exploring a landscape:

  • The “posterior” is like a landscape where high places are good explanations of the data and low places are bad ones.
  • Standard Monte Carlo methods walk around this landscape randomly. Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) is smarter: it pretends you’re sliding over the terrain with momentum, so you move efficiently and don’t get stuck as easily.
  • RMHMC goes further by noticing how the terrain bends and stretches (its curvature) so it adjusts your steps to fit the shape of the landscape. This makes movement much more efficient in tricky areas.

Here’s how the authors made RMHMC faster and more practical:

  • Gaussian processes (GPs) produce smooth curves to describe relationships in data. To run efficiently, the authors use a clever approximation that turns each GP into a sum of simple wave-like features (sinusoids). This makes the model easier to compute while keeping enough accuracy.
  • They focus on “hierarchical” models, meaning several GPs are combined to capture complex patterns, like both the average trend and how spread-out the data is.
  • RMHMC needs to understand the curvature of the posterior landscape. Mathematically, this comes from the “Hessian,” which tells you how curved the landscape is. Sometimes the curvature points in mixed directions (not all positive), which breaks standard RMHMC. To fix this, they use a “soft-absolute” trick: they transform the curvature so it’s safe to use but still preserves the important shape information. You can think of this as turning steepness into a positive scale for how carefully to step in each direction.
  • Two key speed-ups were introduced:
    • They reorganized the order of calculations to avoid repeated or unnecessary work, especially when computing gradients (the directions you want to move).
    • They reused information about the curvature (eigenvectors and eigenvalues—think of them as the main compass directions and steepness of the terrain) from the previous step, instead of recomputing it from scratch each time. This is like remembering your compass directions as you hike, because the terrain doesn’t change abruptly from one step to the next.
  • They also showed why a “naive” use of automatic differentiation (the math engine many libraries use to get gradients) can be very slow for these models, and why a more customized approach is needed.

Main Findings and Why They Matter

The authors tested their method on two types of problems:

  • A simulated classification task (logistic regression) using smooth features.
  • A real dataset from the US National Medical Expenditure Survey (NMES), where they estimated “propensity functions.” These describe how likely someone is to have a certain treatment (here, smoking history) based on their demographics and behavior.

What they found:

  • Their RMHMC implementation was about 10 times faster than a popular library-based approach, while still sampling correctly from the posterior.
  • Compared to a widely used variant of HMC (No-U-Turn Sampler, or NUT-HMC), the new RMHMC avoided getting stuck in overly narrow, high-density regions. In other words, it explored the landscape more faithfully.
  • The method could compute “model evidence” (also called marginal likelihood), which is a score to compare models fairly: it rewards fitting the data well but penalizes models that are too complex. This is important for choosing the best model.
  • On the NMES data, models that allowed both the mean and the variance of the treatment to be flexible (and modeled with GPs) had better evidence scores than simpler models. That suggests these richer models capture real-world complexity better.

Implications and Impact

In simple terms, this work shows that:

  • Smart math plus smart engineering can make advanced statistical methods practical for real-world data.
  • Using the geometry of the problem (how the “landscape” bends) helps the sampler move efficiently and avoid traps.
  • General-purpose libraries that rely on automatic differentiation aren’t always enough; for complex hierarchical GP models, custom code that respects the model’s structure can be much faster.
  • Better sampling and the ability to compute model evidence mean researchers can choose models more reliably, which matters in areas like health and economics where decisions have real consequences.

Looking ahead, the paper suggests building customizable software that lets users:

  • Plug in dynamic, reusable computations (like the remembered curvature directions).
  • Choose the best way to compute gradients depending on the model’s structure. This could lead to more accurate and efficient analysis in many fields that depend on complex, flexible models.
Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Knowledge Gaps

Knowledge gaps, limitations, and open questions

The following list captures concrete gaps and unresolved questions that future work could address to strengthen the paper’s contributions, generality, and rigor.

Algorithmic correctness and theoretical guarantees

  • Lack of formal guarantees for RMHMC correctness when using a soft-absolute Hessian with dynamically programmed eigendecomposition (e.g., reversibility, volume preservation, and detailed balance under approximate eigenvectors and finite tolerance ζ).
  • No analysis of how eigendecomposition errors and approximate third-derivative computations propagate to acceptance probabilities and long-run bias; need bounds quantifying the impact of tolerance and numerical drift (e.g., Gram–Schmidt re-orthogonalization every 10 steps).
  • Absence of theoretical results on ergodicity and convergence rates for RMHMC with soft-absolute metrics in non-log-concave, potentially multimodal hierarchical GP posteriors.
  • Unexplored conditions under which the soft-absolute map g(λ) (e.g., g(λ)=√(κ²+λ²)) yields stable and efficient dynamics, especially in the presence of near-degenerate eigenvalues (λ_i≈λ_j) or frequent eigenvalue crossings.
  • No comparison with alternative Riemannian metrics (e.g., Fisher information or expected Hessian) and their theoretical/empirical trade-offs relative to the soft-absolute Hessian in hierarchical GP settings.

Scalability, complexity, and robustness

  • The claimed complexity reductions (to O(dω(r)+d{1+r})) are not validated over large-scale regimes; empirical scaling is observed to deviate from theory due to GPU parallelism—requiring systematic scaling studies across d, N, J, and M, with memory profiling and bottleneck analysis.
  • Memory footprint and throughput are not quantified for storing and operating on dense Hessians and third derivatives; practical limits on d and N under GPU memory constraints and how sparse structures could be exploited remain unexplored.
  • Sensitivity analyses for key algorithmic hyperparameters (ε, C, κ, ζ) are missing, including adaptive schemes (e.g., Riemannian NUTS, dual-averaging for ε) to automate tuning without sacrificing correctness.
  • Numerical stability and performance under near-equal eigenvalues are not examined; need robust handling of T_{jℓ} terms when λj≈λℓ and safeguards for discontinuities in eigenvectors.
  • No assessment of mixing and mode exploration in strongly multimodal hierarchical posteriors (beyond the observed NUT-HMC trapping), including diagnostics for inter-modal transitions and effective sample size.

Model coverage and assumptions

  • The method is only tested with one-dimensional Gaussian kernels and linear kernels, and additive structures; applicability to high-dimensional kernels, interactions, or non-additive GP constructions (e.g., structured kernels, deep GPs) is not demonstrated.
  • The approximation via fixed sinusoidal features (Solin et al.) lacks error quantification at finite L and M; impact of approximation bias on posterior inference and model evidence is not measured.
  • Hyperparameter handling is simplified (shared {c_g, σg}, cℓ); performance and complexity with per-kernel hyperparameters and larger hyperparameter spaces are untested.
  • Example 2 (nonlinear Gaussian mixture with Bernoulli latent variable) is not implemented; performance on hierarchical models with discrete latents and pronounced non-log-concavity remains an open question.
  • Sequential/time-series hierarchical GP settings (where SMC or particle filters may be needed) are not examined; integration of RMHMC with sequential MC for dynamic models is only discussed, not tested.

Gradient/Hessian computation and automatic differentiation

  • The paper indicates that reverse-mode AD is inefficient and suggests structure-aware differentiation, but does not provide a concrete recipe or library API to mix forward/reverse modes or to exploit problem structure in autodiff while preserving correctness.
  • Third-order derivatives with respect to hyperparameters are stated to be computable “at smaller cost” but are omitted from the main derivation; full implementation details, caching strategies (W1/W2), and numerical behavior for hyperparameter contributions remain unspecified.
  • Potential for exploiting sparsity or low-rank structure in Hessians/third derivatives is not explored; opportunities to reduce O(d3) costs via structured linear algebra (e.g., block-diagonal approximations, Kronecker factorizations) are left open.

Empirical evaluation and baselines

  • The comparison with Hamiltorch may be confounded by differences in g(λ) choices (coth vs. √(κ²+λ²)), implementation language/toolchains, and tuning; a controlled ablation paper isolating these factors is missing.
  • Evaluation is limited to moderate problem sizes (e.g., N≈500, D≤16); lack of stress tests on larger J, M, and d, or more complex hierarchical dependencies, prevents firm conclusions on scalability.
  • Acceptance rates, effective sample sizes, and comprehensive diagnostics (autocorrelation, R-hat, energy diagnostics) are not reported; without these, claims about sampling efficiency and convergence are difficult to assess.
  • No comparison against strong baselines for model evidence estimation (e.g., thermodynamic integration, nested sampling, SMC-based evidence) on the NMES dataset; the reported BME improvements lack cross-validation across methods.

Application-specific limitations (NMES)

  • The propensity models are additive and do not capture interactions among covariates (e.g., age × education), which may be important in practice; the effect on BME and predictive performance is not investigated.
  • The causal inference pipeline is not completed; it remains unknown whether improved propensity estimation with RMHMC translates into better causal effect estimation (e.g., doubly robust estimators, balance metrics, sensitivity to unmeasured confounding).
  • Hyperparameter prior choices (inverse Gamma with fixed hyperparameters) are not subjected to sensitivity analysis; robustness of conclusions to prior misspecification is untested.

Reproducibility and software

  • The optimized C++/OpenACC implementation is not released; reproducibility, portability across hardware, and integration into existing ecosystems (PyTorch, JAX) are unresolved.
  • No general-purpose “customizable library” is provided, despite advocating for one; design requirements (API, autodiff mode control, dynamic eigendecomposition hooks, caching strategies) and validation protocols are not specified.

Future extensions hinted but not addressed

  • Incorporating reversible-jump mechanisms for sparsity/automatic GP selection in Bayesian multiple-kernel models remains a proposal; the required modifications to RMHMC and their performance implications are open.
  • Adapting friction/damping mechanisms from Langevin dynamics to RMHMC to suppress oscillations is suggested but untested; theoretical and empirical evaluation is needed.
  • Developing and validating a Riemannian NUTS variant suitable for soft-absolute Hessian metrics and hierarchical GP posteriors is left for future work.
Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Practical Applications

Immediate Applications

Below are specific, deployable applications that can be implemented now by teams with access to GPUs and moderate engineering capacity. They leverage the paper’s two core innovations: (i) structure-aware computation of RMHMC gradients for hierarchical Gaussian-process (GP) models, and (ii) dynamically programmed eigendecomposition for the soft-absolute Hessian metric.

  • Faster, unbiased Bayesian propensity modeling for observational studies (healthcare/econometrics, policy)
    • What: Replace standard (often variational) propensity estimators with RMHMC-based hierarchical GP models that jointly learn nonlinear mean and variance functions, enabling better covariate adjustment and uncertainty quantification.
    • Where: Health economics (e.g., medical expenditure studies like NMES), epidemiology, social sciences (program evaluation), insurance risk.
    • Tools/workflow: GPU-backed RMHMC sampler for GP propensity functions; plug-in module for causal inference toolchains (e.g., DoWhy/EconML) that exports posterior draws and posterior predictive checks; BME-based model selection to choose among linear vs nonlinear mean/variance specifications.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Additive low-dimensional kernels (1D Gaussian and linear features) as in Solin-style approximations; availability of a CUDA-capable GPU; careful tuning of step size ε, number of leapfrogs C, and soft-absolute parameter κ; engineering ability to integrate a custom RMHMC kernel.
  • Reliable Bayesian classification and risk prediction when bias is costly (healthcare, safety-critical software)
    • What: Hierarchical GP logistic regression with RMHMC for non-Gaussian likelihoods, avoiding variational bias in clinical or safety-critical classification tasks.
    • Where: Diagnostic scoring, triage prioritization, safety monitoring (manufacturing defects), pharmacovigilance.
    • Tools/workflow: Drop-in RMHMC sampler for logistic GP models; posterior predictive distributions and uncertainty intervals; diagnostics that flag Euclidean HMC/NUTS mode-trapping and switch to RMHMC.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Non-log-concave posteriors are expected; soft-absolute Hessian metric is stable; problem sizes fit in GPU memory.
  • Bayesian Model Evidence (BME) for rigorous model selection beyond Laplace (academia, industry analytics)
    • What: Compute BMEs via Monte Carlo integration with RMHMC in models where Laplace approximation fails (singular, non-log-concave posteriors), enabling principled choice between linear vs nonlinear, and mean-only vs mean/variance models.
    • Where: Health economics (propensity modeling), A/B testing analysis, reliability modeling, scientific modeling with hierarchical structures.
    • Tools/workflow: A CLI or pipeline that runs multiple RMHMC chains with annealing schedules, aggregates log-evidence and uncertainty; integrates with model registries for principled selection.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: MC-based BME requires multiple runs and an annealing schedule; runtime measured in hours on a single GPU for moderate models.
  • High-throughput RMHMC kernels for hierarchical GP models (software/ML infrastructure)
    • What: Implement the paper’s structure-aware gradient computation and dynamic eigendecomposition in existing stacks (PyTorch/JAX/NumPyro) to achieve ~10× speedups vs naive automatic differentiation.
    • Where: Internal ML platforms; probabilistic programming teams; HPC analytics shops.
    • Tools/workflow: Custom C++/CUDA/OpenACC operators for (i) structure-aware third-derivative contractions and (ii) dynamic Jacobi-based eigen-updates with orthogonalization; caching of eigenvectors/values across leapfrog steps; mode-aware AD (forward vs reverse) selected per term.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Requires low-level engineering; depends on cuBLAS/cuSolver; careful numerical tolerances and re-orthogonalization policies.
  • Benchmarking and methodological research in non-log-concave GP posteriors (academia)
    • What: Use the accelerated RMHMC to systematically paper sampling efficiency, posterior geometry, and the failure modes of Euclidean HMC/NUTS in hierarchical GP models.
    • Where: Bayesian computation labs; PhD projects; tutorials.
    • Tools/workflow: Reference implementations, reproducible benchmarks, datasets (simulated, NMES); comparative studies vs variational methods.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Access to GPU compute; model classes aligned with additive-kernel structure.
  • Policy analysis pilots with improved uncertainty (policy analytics)
    • What: Re-analyze legacy observational datasets (e.g., NMES) to refine estimates of treatment effects by feeding better propensity models (with variance) into downstream causal workflows.
    • Where: Public health agencies, think tanks, regulatory impact analyses.
    • Tools/workflow: RMHMC-based propensity estimation module + standard causal estimators (IPW, DR, TMLE) + sensitivity analyses.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Downstream causal identification assumptions remain; current work estimates propensity only—full causal pipelines still need theoretical/engineering work.

Long-Term Applications

Below are applications that will benefit from further research, scaling, and productization—especially extending beyond 1D features, enabling model composition, and improving automation.

  • General-purpose, structure-aware RMHMC library for hierarchical models (software)
    • What: A customizable probabilistic library that natively supports soft-absolute Hessian metrics, dynamic eigendecomposition, and automatic structure-aware AD (mixing forward/reverse) for complex hierarchical GPs.
    • Potential product: “RiemannianGP” or a backend for Stan/TFP/NumPyro enabling Riemannian HMC at scale.
    • Dependencies: Robust AD graph transformations that encode Betancourt’s trace formulas; safe, portable GPU implementations; extensive testing on non-log-concave targets.
  • Scaling to high-dimensional kernels and sparse GPs (software, multiple sectors)
    • What: Extend beyond 1D additive kernels to multidimensional kernels, inducing-point approximations, and automatic features while preserving RMHMC efficiency.
    • Use cases: Energy demand forecasting, climate risk, complex biomedical signals, high-dimensional finance factors.
    • Dependencies: New structure-exploiting derivatives; memory-efficient eigendecomposition; hybrid of RMHMC with sparse GP approximations.
  • Reversible-jump and sparsity-aware model composition (academia, biotech, finance)
    • What: Combine RMHMC with reversible-jump MCMC to automatically select/reweight GP components (kernel selection, feature sparsity), enabling interpretable models and automatic relevance determination at the model-structure level.
    • Use cases: Biomarker discovery, factor selection in asset pricing, materials design.
    • Dependencies: Well-engineered transdimensional proposals; efficient short-run BME estimates within jumps; careful identifiability handling.
  • Time-series and state-space extensions via SMC + RMHMC (robotics, IoT, operations)
    • What: Couple RMHMC with sequential Monte Carlo to tackle hierarchical GP state-space models with non-Gaussian measurement noise for control, tracking, and forecasting.
    • Use cases: Robotics dynamics learning with safety constraints, predictive maintenance, grid stability monitoring.
    • Dependencies: Algorithmic design for stability under online updates; latency constraints; combination with control-aware sampling (e.g., friction/damping variants).
  • End-to-end causal inference pipelines with full uncertainty (policy, healthcare, economics)
    • What: Build pipelines that estimate treatment assignment (mean and variance) and outcome models with RMHMC-GPs, producing posterior distributions over causal estimands with principled BME-driven model selection.
    • Use cases: Health policy (e.g., smoking impact, reimbursement models), education interventions, labor market programs.
    • Dependencies: Theory and tooling to propagate posterior uncertainty from propensity to outcome; computational efficiency for large datasets; validation under standard identification assumptions.
  • Automated BME-driven model selection for kernelized models (AutoML)
    • What: Auto-select kernel families, interaction structures, and variance models using RMHMC-derived BMEs instead of pure cross-validation, particularly when data are scarce or posteriors are singular.
    • Use cases: Scientific modeling, risk-sensitive decision systems, small-sample ML.
    • Dependencies: Efficient multi-model orchestration; prior calibration; approximations that preserve ranking under computational budgets.
  • Risk auditing and governance for probabilistic models (enterprise DS/ML governance)
    • What: Standardize workflows to benchmark variational approximations against RMHMC on critical tasks; flag regimes where Euclidean HMC/NUTS shows mode-trapping.
    • Use cases: Banks, insurers, healthcare providers needing auditable uncertainty quantification.
    • Dependencies: Governance frameworks; scalable pipelines for selective RMHMC replacement; SLAs around compute cost vs accuracy.
  • GPU numerical kernels for dynamic eigendecomposition (HPC, numerical libraries)
    • What: Integrate dynamic Jacobi sweeps and caching strategies into BLAS/LAPACK-like libraries optimized for RMHMC use cases.
    • Use cases: Broad acceleration of algorithms needing repeated eigen-updates (e.g., second-order methods, geometry-aware samplers).
    • Dependencies: Vendor cooperation (NVIDIA/AMD/Intel), stable APIs, rigorous numerical validation.

Cross-cutting assumptions and dependencies

  • Modeling assumptions
    • Additive structure over low-dimensional kernels using predefined sinusoidal features (Solin-style); strongest results currently shown for 1D Gaussian and linear kernels.
    • Posterior smoothness sufficient for stable Hessian estimation; soft-absolute metric parameter κ must be tuned.
  • Computational dependencies
    • Access to modern GPUs with sufficient memory; performance heavily depends on GPU BLAS/eigensolver implementations.
    • Need for custom implementations: general-purpose AD libraries typically overcompute unless made structure-aware.
  • Practical considerations
    • Hyperparameter priors influence stability and exploration; annealing schedules for BME require care.
    • For very large d or N, additional sparsity/inducing-point machinery will be needed to retain efficiency.
    • In policy applications, improved propensity models must be embedded in fully validated causal workflows; better estimation alone does not guarantee unbiased causal conclusions.
Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Glossary

  • Adaptive sequential Monte Carlo: A class of particle-based algorithms that adaptively sample and weight to approximate posterior distributions over time. "adaptive sequential MC"
  • Automatic differentiation (reverse-mode): A technique to compute derivatives by propagating gradients backward through a computation graph, efficient for scalar outputs. "reverse-mode automatic differentiation"
  • Bayesian logistic regression: Logistic regression where parameters have priors and inference targets the posterior distribution. "Bayesian logistic regression"
  • Bayesian model evidence (BME): The marginal likelihood of the data under a model, used for model comparison. "the Bayesian model evidence"
  • Bayesian multiple-kernel model: A model combining several kernel-based Gaussian-process components under a Bayesian framework. "Bayesian multiple-kernel models"
  • Betancourt's formula: A method to compute derivatives for the soft-absolute Hessian metric via eigendecomposition and Hadamard products. "Betancourt's formula"
  • CUDA: NVIDIA’s parallel computing platform for running code on GPUs. "CUDA devices"
  • cuBLAS: NVIDIA’s GPU-accelerated Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms library. "cuBLAS and cuSolver"
  • cuSolver: NVIDIA’s GPU-accelerated library for dense and sparse linear algebra solvers. "cuBLAS and cuSolver"
  • Divide-and-conquer algorithm (for eigendecomposition): An algorithmic approach that recursively splits the matrix to compute eigenvalues and eigenvectors efficiently. "divide-and-conquer algorithm for the eigendecomposition of symmetric matrices"
  • Gaussian processes (GPs): Distributions over functions specified by mean and covariance (kernel), used as priors for nonlinear functions. "Gaussian processes (GPs)"
  • Gram-Schmidt orthogonalisation: A procedure to transform a set of vectors into an orthonormal set. "Gram-Schmidt orthogonalisation"
  • Hadamard product: Elementwise multiplication of matrices of the same dimensions. "Hadamard product"
  • Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC): An MCMC method that uses Hamiltonian dynamics to efficiently explore posterior distributions. "Hamiltonian MC (HMC)"
  • Hessian metric: A Riemannian metric derived from the Hessian of the negative log-posterior, guiding RMHMC trajectories by local curvature. "Hessian metric"
  • Inducing points: Pseudo-inputs used to build sparse approximations of Gaussian processes. "inducing points sampled using Hamiltonian MC (HMC)"
  • Incomplete Cholesky decomposition: A low-rank factorization used to approximate positive-semidefinite matrices. "incomplete Cholesky decomposition"
  • Inverse Gamma prior: A prior distribution for positive-valued parameters (e.g., variances, scales). "inverse Gamma priors"
  • Jacobi method: An iterative algorithm for eigenvalue decomposition of symmetric matrices, amenable to parallelization. "the Jacobi method"
  • Laplace approximation: A Gaussian approximation of a posterior or likelihood around its mode. "Laplace approximation"
  • Marginal likelihood: The likelihood integrated over model parameters; equivalent to Bayesian model evidence. "the marginal likelihood"
  • Metropolis-Hastings procedure: An acceptance-rejection rule used to correct for discretization errors and ensure detailed balance in MCMC. "Metropolis-Hastings procedure"
  • No-U-Turn HMC (NUT-HMC): A variant of HMC that avoids trajectories doubling back, improving efficiency. "no-U-turn (NUT)-HMC"
  • Positive-semidefinite kernel: A kernel function whose Gram matrix is positive semidefinite, ensuring valid covariance in GPs. "positive-semidefinite kernels"
  • Propensity function: A model of the treatment assignment mechanism given covariates, used in causal inference. "propensity functions"
  • PyTorch: A machine learning framework providing automatic differentiation and GPU acceleration. "PyTorch"
  • Riemannian-manifold Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (RMHMC): HMC on a manifold with a position-dependent metric, adapting moves to local geometry. "Riemannian-manifold Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (RMHMC)"
  • Riemannian metric: A smoothly varying inner product on a manifold’s tangent spaces, defining geometric structure for RMHMC. "a nontrivial Riemannian metric"
  • Soft-absolute Hessian metric: A positive-semidefinite metric formed by mapping Hessian eigenvalues to smooth approximations of their absolute values. "soft-absolute Hessian metric"
  • Wilcoxon's rank-sum test: A nonparametric test comparing two independent samples’ distributions. "Wilcoxon's rank-sum test"
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 1 tweet and received 47 likes.

Upgrade to Pro to view all of the tweets about this paper: