arXiv preprint ·
What Can a Gaussian Process Design Test
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
A Gaussian process (GP) model can agree with the data for two reasons: its assumptions are right, or the chosen inputs could never have shown that they are wrong. The distinction can be checked from the design before any responses are observed. Every model implies relations that its noiseless responses must satisfy at the chosen inputs, such as the middle value lies on the line through its two neighbours. For GPs built from finitely many features, these relations are exactly the null space of the kernel matrix. Gale duality gives them a geometric interpretation, in which each observation has a vector and the smallest groups of observations that can expose an error are the circuits. For other kernels the relations become soft: response patterns may be improbable under the prior rather than algebraically impossible. A standard test then combines two kinds of evidence. Structural evidence comes from a violated relation and grows without limit as the noise falls. Prior-based evidence only says that a departure is improbable under the prior. With all inputs at the two ends of an interval, for example, a GP can reject a straight line against a large curvature, but only because the implied intercept is improbable, never because curvature was seen. In simulations the predicted power matched the observed rejection rates. Choosing the next input by predicted power raised the power against a localised discrepancy from 0.48 to 0.72, against 0.51 when choosing by predictive variance, and a grid in two dimensions contained exact tests of additivity that a Latin hypercube lacked. The test itself is classical. The contribution is the prospective reading of that test: before observing the responses, the design already determines what kind of contradiction it can produce.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
The Winner's Curse in LLM Self-Improvement Loops: Selection Noise, Lock-in, and Acceptance Rules
Mid-Training Language Models on Raw Video
Beyond Nominal Equilibria: Risk-Averse Multi-Population Mean-Field Games
A Graph Neural Network for Global Daily Fire Radiative Power Prediction at Medium-Range Lead Times
An Informational Curse of Horizon in Goal-Conditioned Policy Learning
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.