Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 94 references

Distributed and recursive Bayesian inference for Big Data and complex spatio-temporal models

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Partitioning data and structured latent fields inside INLA yields distributed and recursive Bayesian posteriors that stay close to full-data inference while cutting cost.

desk verdict Solid INLA-native distributed/recursive pipeline with exact Gaussian data-split identities; latent-field partition log-det surrogates are uncontrolled truncations that the examples do not isolate. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23396 v1 pith:UFTHCTKP submitted 2026-07-25 stat.ME

Mario Figueira , David Conesa , Antonio López-Quílez , H{aa}vard Rue This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62F1562M3065C60
keywords distributedinferencerecursivelatentGaussianmodelsINLAspatio-temporalBigDatafederatedlearningGMRFpartitioning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Massive spatio-temporal datasets, streaming observations, and privacy rules that block raw-data sharing make ordinary Bayesian updates impractical. This paper shows how to run those updates inside the INLA framework by splitting both the observations and the structured pieces of the latent field (spatial, temporal, or graph components) into smaller blocks, computing local Gaussian approximations, and recombining them. For Gaussian likelihoods the recombination is exact; for non-Gaussian likelihoods it is an approximation whose quality the authors monitor. The same machinery supports recursive (online) updating when new batches arrive and federated analysis when sites cannot exchange raw records. Case studies on a simulated spatio-temporal field and on U.S. PM2.5 monitoring data show that latent-field summaries remain close to the centralized answer even when hyperparameter geometry drifts, giving practitioners a practical route to scalable, privacy-aware Bayesian inference without rewriting their models from scratch.

What carries the argument

Block-independent and block-correlated partitions of the latent-field precision matrix (Eqs. 42–48), together with the product-of-Gaussians recombination for the conditional latent posterior (Eq. 13) and the recursive precision/mean updates (Eqs. 35–38).

What would settle it

On a non-Gaussian spatio-temporal model whose full-data INLA solution is known, increase the number or heterogeneity of partitions until the recombined hyperparameter CCD or the latent-field credible intervals diverge beyond a pre-chosen tolerance from the centralized answer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Inside INLA, both the data likelihood and the structured components of the latent Gaussian field can be partitioned so that the product (or recursive update) of the resulting local Gaussian approximations recovers, to usable accuracy, the same latent-field marginals and hyperparameter summaries that full-data INLA would produce, while the smaller sparse matrices sharply reduce memory and factorization cost.

Load-bearing premise

For non-Gaussian likelihoods the product of the local Gaussian approximations stays accurate enough that hyperparameter geometry and latent-field marginals do not degrade materially when the blocks are recombined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Large spatio-temporal models whose precision matrices no longer fit in memory can be analyzed by automatic graph partitioning without redesigning the likelihood.
  • Streaming environmental or epidemiological series can be updated recursively by feeding each new batch into the previous latent posterior as prior.
  • Privacy-sensitive consortia can exchange only local posterior summaries (means, precisions, marginal likelihoods) and still obtain a joint INLA analysis.
  • Meta-analysis of published studies becomes a special case of the same recursive product of approximate posteriors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same partition-and-recombine algebra could be applied to other sparse latent-Gaussian engines beyond INLA, provided they expose the conditional precision and mode.
  • When hyperparameter posteriors already differ across blocks (as seen in the PM2.5 example), a hierarchical hyperprior that itself varies by partition may reduce the observed CCD drift.
  • Federated settings with non-overlapping latent structures (different covariates or meshes) are a direct extension once the mean and precision are expanded to a common super-field.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a framework for distributed, recursive, and federated Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models built on INLA/R-INLA. For data partitioning it derives exact identities for the conditional latent-field posterior under Gaussian likelihoods and conditional independence (Eqs. 9–11, 30–31), and Gaussian-approximation combinations for non-Gaussian likelihoods (Eq. 13, recursive updates Eqs. 35–38). It then constructs distributed approximations to the hyperparameter posterior (Eqs. 16–21) and several strategies for hyperparameter marginals (interpolation, asymmetric Gaussian, Laplace, integration-free, consensus MC). Section 5 partitions the latent field itself via block-independent (Eqs. 43–45) and block-correlated/halo (Eqs. 46–48) schemes with log-determinant surrogates. Two examples are given: a Gaussian simulated spatio-temporal case with 2 partitions, and a 873,762-observation PM2.5 Gamma model with space–time interaction. The simulation matches full-data inference well; the PM2.5 case recovers latent fields but shows substantial divergence in the CCD and hyperparameter marginals (Figs. 10, 13), attributed to non-Gaussianity and hyperparameter heterogeneity.

Significance. If the approximation layers hold up, this is a practically significant contribution: it makes INLA viable for massive spatio-temporal datasets, streaming updates, and privacy-constrained (federated) settings within the widely used R-INLA stack. Explicit strengths: (i) the data-partitioning and recursive identities (Eqs. 9–11, 30–31) are exact and parameter-free for Gaussian likelihoods under conditional independence; (ii) the authors are candid about non-Gaussian error accumulation (Eq. 13) and recursive non-invariance under partition reordering (§4.1); (iii) the lifted-space determinant identity (Eq. 48) makes the latent-field partitioning surrogate falsifiable, since the neglected term is computable; (iv) a real 873k-observation PM2.5 case study is attempted. The main limitation is that the two ingredients most central to the headline claim — the determinant surrogates and the complexity reduction — are asserted rather than measured.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5, Eqs. (43)–(48)] §5.1–5.2, Eqs. (43)–(48): the latent-field partitioning rests on two uncontrolled log-determinant surrogates: truncation of the expansion in Eq. (45) after noting tr(D^{-1}R)=0, and dropping the interface Schur-complement term log|B Q~^{-1} B^T| from the exact identity in Eq. (48). These determinants enter the hyperparameter posterior via Eq. (14), so any θ-dependent error tilts the hyperparameter geometry, the CCD support points (Eq. 21), and everything downstream. No bound, no scaling analysis in partition count or interface size, and no empirical isolation is given. This is testable: the neglected term in Eq. (48) is computable at interface dimension; please report its magnitude relative to log|Q| across θ, or run the block-correlated scheme with exact determinants to isolate the surrogate's contribution. As stated, 'preserving accuracy' for latent-field partitioning is unestablished
  2. [§6, Figs. 3, 10, 13] §6.1 and §6.2: the empirical section cannot currently support the partitioning claims. §6.1 uses only 2 temporal partitions with a minimal interface, precisely the regime where the neglected Schur term is small; §6.2 shows substantial divergence in the CCD and hyperparameter marginals (Figs. 10, 13), which the text attributes to non-Gaussianity and hyperparameter heterogeneity — but the determinant surrogate is an unexamined confound in that attribution. Please add a study varying partition count/interface size (e.g., 2, 4, 8 temporal cuts) in the Gaussian simulation where the rest of the machinery is exact, so the surrogate's error can be isolated, and disentangle the two error sources in §6.2.
  3. [§3.3, Eqs. (18)–(21)] Eqs. (18)–(21): the global Gaussian approximation sums per-partition Hessians H_{θ*_i} evaluated at partition-specific modes θ*_i (Eq. 19). A Hessian of the global log-posterior evaluated at the global mode is not the sum of Hessians at differing local modes unless the modes coincide; the product-of-Gaussians combination in Eqs. (20)–(21) is a consensus-style heuristic, not an identity. This is load-bearing because the CCD integration design (and hence the marginals in Eq. 22) is built from it. At minimum, state the regularity condition (proximity of the θ*_i) under which this is controlled, quantify the error when it fails (Fig. 10 suggests §6.2 is such a case), and consider evaluating all partition Hessians at a common reference point.
  4. [Abstract, §6, §7] Abstract and §7: the central claim 'reducing computational complexity while preserving accuracy' is not quantified on either axis. No runtimes, memory footprints, or factorization costs are reported anywhere in §6, despite the complexity reduction being the paper's stated motivation; and §6.2 itself exhibits clear accuracy loss in the hyperparameter posterior (Figs. 10, 13). Please (i) report timing/memory comparisons against full-data R-INLA for both examples, and (ii) temper the abstract/conclusions to match the demonstrated scope: latent-field marginals recover well, hyperparameter geometry does not in the non-Gaussian case.
  5. [§3.4, Eq. (29)] Eq. (29): consensus Monte Carlo with weights w_i = π̃(y_i) (per-partition marginal likelihoods) is nonstandard — the Scott et al. (2016) algorithm uses precision (inverse-covariance) weights, which is what makes it exact for Gaussian subposteriors. Marginal-likelihood weighting lacks justification here and can be dominated by partition size. Please either justify this choice or use standard precision weighting, and clarify how Eq. (29) interacts with the asymmetric-Gaussian subposteriors from the integration-free algorithm.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§6] Broken cross-references: §6 first paragraph cites 'Section ??' and §6.2 cites 'Algorithm ??' for the partitioning procedure; the Supplementary Material reference target must be restored.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (12)] Eq. (12): the canonical-form notation is unclear and the line 'The mean is computed as b_i = w_i Q_i^{-1}(θ)µ_i' appears dimensionally inconsistent — b_i should be the linear coefficient vector (canonical potential), not a scaled mean. Please rewrite Eq. (12) with explicit canonical parameters and check the sign of the linear term.
  3. [§2–3] Notation: n denotes both the number of observations (Eq. 1) and the number of partitions (Eq. 6 onward); |y| in the weights below Eq. (10) is undefined; the asymmetric-Gaussian variances in Eqs. (24) and (26) are written ambiguously ((σ^-_j)^{-2} z^2 vs (z/σ)^2) and lack normalization constants.
  4. [Throughout] Typos and garbled text: 'previosly' (§3.2), 'hyperparamters' (§3.2), 'block-independeent', 'propoerties' (§5), 'Dendogram', 'matriz', 'highlited' (Fig. 1 caption), 'could themselves varying' (§7); the sentence defining the simulation model in §6.1 ('βcat us is a spatial component...') is broken.
  5. [§6, Figs. 3–13] Figures: Figs. 3 and 10 are difficult to read at print size and captions are sparse (no indication of which hyperparameter axis is which in Fig. 3). Quantitative accuracy metrics (e.g., distances between marginal posteriors, coverage comparisons) would strengthen §6 beyond visual overlay.
  6. [§5.2] Positioning: the block-correlated scheme is essentially a Schwarz/domain-decomposition approximation for GMRF determinants; there is existing literature on parallel and domain-decomposed inference for latent Gaussian models that should be cited and contrasted, beyond the Toselli–Widlund reference.
  7. [§4.3] §4.3 honestly acknowledges that integration support points cannot in general be reused across recursive steps; a brief summary of what is actually reused and the resulting per-step cost would help readers assess the practical value of the recursive scheme relative to a fresh R-INLA run.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: distributed/recursive identities are algebraic rearrangements of the INLA/GMRF posterior, and latent-field log-det surrogates are explicit truncations benchmarked against full-data INLA.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing steps are (i) rewriting the conditional latent-field posterior under conditional independence (Eqs. 6–11, 30–31), which for Gaussian likelihoods is an exact algebraic identity, not a fit or a definitional loop; (ii) product-of-Gaussians and recursive mode updates for non-Gaussian likelihoods (Eqs. 12–13, 34–38), presented and used as approximations with acknowledged error accumulation; and (iii) block-independent / block-correlated latent-field partitions whose log-determinant surrogates (Eqs. 43–48) are derived as zeroth-order truncations of known matrix expansions and justified by external domain-decomposition references (Toselli & Widlund 2005; Zhang 2005), not by self-citation uniqueness theorems. Empirical claims are checked against centralized full-data INLA on the same models (§6), an external benchmark relative to the distributed procedure. Self-citations (Figueira et al. 2025a,b; Van Niekerk & Rue; Rue et al.) supply INLA background and prior sequential-consensus tooling; they do not force the distributed identities or the accuracy claim by construction. Correctness concerns about uncontrolled determinant truncations or non-Gaussian hyperparameter divergence are validity issues, not circularity. No fitted-input-as-prediction, self-definitional, or uniqueness-import patterns appear.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The framework rests on standard LGM/INLA assumptions plus several modeling choices about how to split priors, approximate non-Gaussian conditionals, and surrogate log-determinants of partitioned precision matrices. No new physical entities are postulated; the ‘invented’ pieces are algorithmic partition schemes.

free parameters (3)
  • prior weights w_i on partitions = user-chosen; examples use equal or size-based splits
    Chosen by the analyst (uniform, size-based, or other schemes with sum w_i=1); they alter each partition posterior and the combined hyperparameter Gaussian.
  • number and cut locations of latent-field partitions = two temporal partitions in examples; PM2.5 uses 14+1 temporal nodes
    Graph cuts (temporal precision blocks, spatial meshes) are design choices that control both cost and approximation quality; not derived from data.
  • CCD / integration support design
    Support points and weights Δ_k for hyperparameter integration are constructed from the approximate modal Gaussian; design choices affect marginal accuracy.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Observations are conditionally independent given the latent field and hyperparameters (Eq. 1), allowing likelihood factorization across partitions.
    Standard LGM assumption; load-bearing for all distributed product formulas in §3.1.
  • domain assumption INLA’s Gaussian / low-rank VB approximation to the conditional latent-field posterior is adequate at each partition or recursive step.
    Inherited from Rue et al. (2009) and Van Niekerk & Rue (2024); errors accumulate in non-Gaussian distributed/recursive products.
  • ad hoc to paper Block-independent log|Q|≈∑log|Q_i^{(0)}| (zeroth-order perturbation) or block-correlated ∑log|Q_i| (neglecting interface Schur complement) are acceptable surrogates for the global log-determinant.
    Justified via matrix perturbation / domain-decomposition arguments in §5 but not error-bounded for the models used.
  • standard math Sparse GMRF precision structure and standard INLA hyperparameter exploration (CCD/grid, numerical-integration-free marginals) remain valid after recombination.
    Background computational linear algebra and INLA practice.
invented entities (2)
  • Block-independent latent-field partition scheme
    purpose: Sever cross-boundary edges so precision becomes block-diagonal and determinants factor, cutting factorization cost.
    Methodological construct; alters conditional independence of the original GMRF by design.
  • Block-correlated (halo / extended) latent-field partition scheme
    purpose: Keep boundary correlations via overlapping re-scaled local precisions that sum to global Q, while still approximating log|Q| by ∑log|Q_i|.
    Domain-decomposition-inspired construction specific to this paper’s distributed INLA pipeline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distributed and recursive Bayesian inference for Big Data and complex spatio-temporal models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UFTHCTKP

@misc{pith2026260723396,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distributed and recursive Bayesian inference for Big Data and complex spatio-temporal models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UFTHCTKP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23396}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid growth of massive and complex datasets in fields such as econometrics, environmental sciences, risk management, and public policy has reshaped statistical modeling while introducing significant computational and methodological challenges. These challenges arise not only from data scale and model complexity, but also from the sequential or streaming nature of modern applications and from data-privacy constraints that prevent sharing raw data and thus limit joint analysis. To address these challenges, we introduce a novel and comprehensive Bayesian framework for distributed and recursive inference, grounded in the Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations (INLA) methodology and implemented using the R-INLA software. Our contributions include the partitioning both data and structured model components, reducing computational complexity while preserving accuracy relative to centralized full-data inference. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework through case studies that highlight its applicability in large-scale, streaming, and privacy-sensitive settings. By integrating distributed, federated, and recursive paradigms, this work offers scalable, adaptive, and generalizable tools for modern Bayesian inference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23396 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example with two graphs—a dendrogram and a grid—with the diagonal blocks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plots of the temporal and spatial effects, together with the spatial patterns of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CCD for the full data inference (red) and from the combination of the dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior distributions of the intercept and covariate parameters from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior distributions of the categorical variable parameters from the full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior mean and 95% credible intervals of the temporal effect under the full-data (red), distributed (blue), and recursive (green) analyses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the posterior mean, standard deviation, and 2.5th and 97.5th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Posterior distributions of the hyperparameters on the internal scale, obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: PM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: CCD plot of the integration scheme in the hyperparameter space for full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of posterior mean and standard deviation of the spatial effect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Posterior mean and 95% credible intervals of the temporal effect under the full-data (red) and distributed (blue) analyses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Posterior distributions of the hyperparameters on the internal scale and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics , author =

    Planar. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics , author =. 1994 , pages =. doi:10.1137/S0895480191198768 , language =

    doi:10.1137/s0895480191198768 1994

  2. [2]

    International Data Privacy Law , author =

    Practical approaches to big data privacy over time , volume =. International Data Privacy Law , author =. 2018 , pages =. doi:10.1093/idpl/ipx027 , language =

    work page doi:10.1093/idpl/ipx027 2018

  3. [3]

    SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications , author =

    An. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications , author =. 1996 , note =. doi:10.1137/s0895479894278952 , language =

    doi:10.1137/s0895479894278952 1996

  4. [4]

    Spatial modeling with R-INLA: A review , journal =

    Bakka, Haakon and Rue, H. Spatial modeling with R-INLA: A review , journal =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.1443 , year =

    doi:10.1002/wics.1443

  5. [5]

    Acta Numerica , author =

    Numerical solution of saddle point problems , volume =. Acta Numerica , author =. 2005 , pages =. doi:10.1017/S0962492904000212 , language =

    doi:10.1017/s0962492904000212 2005

  6. [6]

    , year =

    Bishop, Christopher M. , year =. Pattern recognition and machine learning , isbn =

  7. [7]

    Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment , author =

    Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , volume =. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment , author =. 2008 , pages =. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 , number =

    doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/p10008 2008

  8. [8]

    Bernstein - von

    Bochkina, Natalia , year =. Bernstein - von. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-30114-8_10 , pages =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-30114-8_10

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    Spectral clustering and biclustering: learning large graphs and contingency tables , isbn =

    Bolla, Marianna , year =. Spectral clustering and biclustering: learning large graphs and contingency tables , isbn =

  2. [10]

    Streaming

    Broderick, Tamara and Boyd, Nicholas and Wibisono, Andre and Wilson, Ashia C and Jordan, Michael I , editor =. Streaming. Advances in

  3. [11]

    Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , author =

    A novel method of marginalisation using low discrepancy sequences for integrated nested. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , author =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2020.107147 , language =

    2021

  4. [12]

    Statistical Science , author =

    Particle. Statistical Science , author =. doi:10.1214/10-STS325 , number =

    doi

  5. [13]

    The Annals of Statistics , author =

    On the. The Annals of Statistics , author =. doi:10.1214/14-AOS1246 , number =

    doi

  6. [14]

    , year =

    Chung, Fan Rong K. , year =. Spectral graph theory , isbn =

  7. [15]

    Diggle and Paula Moraga and Barry Rowlingson and Benjamin M

    Peter J. Diggle and Paula Moraga and Barry Rowlingson and Benjamin M. Taylor , title =. Statistical Science , number =. 2013 , doi =

    2013

  8. [16]

    Duff, I. S. , collaborator =. Direct

  9. [17]

    Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , author =

    A comprehensive survey of clustering algorithms:. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , author =. 2022 , note =. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2022.104743 , language =

    2022

  10. [18]

    BioScience , author =

    Situating. BioScience , author =. 2018 , pages =. doi:10.1093/biosci/biy068 , language =

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Foundations of Data Science , author =

    Smart. Foundations of Data Science , author =. 2022 , pages =. doi:10.3934/fods.2021037 , number =

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2022 , journal =

    Approximate Bayesian Inference for the Interaction Types 1, 2, 3 and 4 with Application in Disease Mapping , author=. 2022 , journal =. 2206.09287 , archivePrefix=

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal , author =

    Algebraic connectivity of graphs , volume =. Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal , author =. 1973 , pages =. doi:10.21136/CMJ.1973.101168 , language =

    1973

  14. [22]

    Environmental and Ecological Statistics , author =

    A computationally efficient procedure for combining ecological datasets by means of sequential consensus inference , volume =. Environmental and Ecological Statistics , author =. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s10651-025-00653-x , language =

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    2025 , eprint=

    Integrating Expert Knowledge and Recursive Bayesian Inference: A Framework for Spatial and Spatio-Temporal Data Challenges , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  16. [24]

    Physics Reports , author =

    Community detection in graphs , volume =. Physics Reports , author =. 2010 , note =. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002 , number =

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    Physics Reports , author =

    Community detection in networks:. Physics Reports , author =. 2016 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.09.002 , language =

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    The Annals of Statistics , author =

    Wald. The Annals of Statistics , author =. doi:10.1214/aos/1017938917 , number =

  19. [27]

    Statistical Theory and Related Fields , author =

    A review of distributed statistical inference , volume =. Statistical Theory and Related Fields , author =. 2022 , pages =. doi:10.1080/24754269.2021.1974158 , language =

    2022

  20. [28]

    SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , author =

    Nested. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , author =. 1973 , note =. doi:10.1137/0710032 , language =

    1973 doi

  21. [29]

    SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , author =

    An. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , author =. 1976 , note =

    1976

  22. [30]

    Numerische Mathematik , author =

    The analysis of a nested dissection algorithm , volume =. Numerische Mathematik , author =. 1986 , note =. doi:10.1007/bf01396660 , language =

    1986 doi

  23. [31]

    Journal of Computer and System Sciences , author =

    Planar. Journal of Computer and System Sciences , author =. 1995 , pages =. doi:10.1006/jcss.1995.1076 , language =

    1995

  24. [32]

    Geometric approximation algorithms , isbn =

    Har-Peled, Sariel , year =. Geometric approximation algorithms , isbn =

  25. [33]

    Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation , author =

    Graph morphology , volume =. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation , author =. 1992 , pages =. doi:10.1016/1047-3203(92)90028-R , language =

    1992 doi

  26. [34]

    Stochastic variational inference , journal =

    Hoffman, Matthew D and Blei, David M and Wang, Chong and Paisley, John , year =. Stochastic variational inference , journal =

  27. [35]

    The American Statistician , author =

    Making. The American Statistician , author =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1080/00031305.2019.1665584 , number =

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Sampling for

    Huang, Zaijing and Gelman, Andrew , year =. Sampling for

  29. [37]

    Illian and Sigrunn H

    Janine B. Illian and Sigrunn H. S. The Annals of Applied Statistics , number =. 2012 , doi =

    2012

  30. [38]

    Pattern Recognition Letters , author =

    Data clustering: 50 years beyond. Pattern Recognition Letters , author =. 2010 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2009.09.011 , language =

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , author =

    Normalized cuts and image segmentation , volume =. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , author =. 2000 , pages =. doi:10.1109/34.868688 , number =

    doi

  32. [40]

    Psychometrika , author =

    Hierarchical. Psychometrika , author =. 1967 , note =. doi:10.1007/bf02289588 , language =

    1967 doi

  33. [41]

    Karypis, George and Kumar, Vipin , month = sep, year =

  34. [42]

    , month = mar, year =

    Kaufman, Leonard and Rousseeuw, Peter J. , month = mar, year =. Finding. doi:10.1002/9780470316801 , note =

    doi

  35. [43]

    Entropy , author =

    On. Entropy , author =. 2023 , pages =. doi:10.3390/e25060884 , language =

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Statistics in Medicine , doi =

    Knorr-Held, Leonhard , title =. Statistics in Medicine , doi =

  37. [45]

    Misspecified

    Koers, Geerten and Szabó, Botond and Vaart, Aad van der , month = jun, year =. Misspecified. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2308.07803 , urldate =

    doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    , year =

    Kullback, S. , year =. Information

  39. [47]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , volume =

    Lindgren, Finn and Rue, H. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2011.00777.x , year =

    2011

  40. [48]

    Journal of Statistical Software , author =

    Bayesian. Journal of Statistical Software , author =. 2015 , pages =. doi:10.18637/jss.v063.i19 , number =

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    SIAM Journal on Computing , author =

    Applications of a. SIAM Journal on Computing , author =. 1980 , pages =. doi:10.1137/0209046 , language =

    1980 doi

  42. [50]

    SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , author =

    Comparative. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , author =. 1976 , note =

    1976

  43. [51]

    ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software , author =

    Modification of the minimum-degree algorithm by multiple elimination , volume =. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software , author =. 1985 , note =. doi:10.1145/214392.214398 , language =

    1985

  44. [52]

    SORT , author =

    Leave-group-out cross-validation for latent gaussian models , volume =. SORT , author =. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.57645/20.8080.02.25 , language =

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics , author =

    Fully. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics , author =. 2013 , pages =. doi:10.1111/rssc.12007 , number =

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    Computers & Structures , author =

    Algorithms for reducing the bandwidth and profile of a sparse matrix , volume =. Computers & Structures , author =. 1992 , pages =. doi:10.1016/0045-7949(92)90386-E , language =

    1992 doi

  47. [55]

    Communication-

    McMahan, Brendan and Moore, Eider and Ramage, Daniel and Hampson, Seth and Arcas, Blaise Aguera y , editor =. Communication-. Proceedings of the 20th. 2017 , pages =

    2017

  48. [56]

    Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , author =

    Approximate. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , author =. 2007 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.jspi.2006.07.016 , language =

    2007 doi

  49. [57]

    and Simpson, Daniel and Lindgren, Finn and Rue, H

    Martins, Thiago G. and Simpson, Daniel and Lindgren, Finn and Rue, H. Bayesian computing with. 2013 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2013.04.014 , journal =

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    Parallel sparse

    Monien, Burkhard and Schulze, Jürgen , isbn =. Parallel sparse. Lecture. 1997 , doi =

    1997

  51. [59]

    , year =

    Myers, Raymond H. , year =. Response

  52. [60]

    WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , author =

    Algorithms for hierarchical clustering: an overview , volume =. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , author =. 2012 , note =. doi:10.1002/widm.53 , number =

    2012 doi

  53. [61]

    Combinatorial scientific computing , isbn =

    Naumann, Uwe and Schenk, Olaf , year =. Combinatorial scientific computing , isbn =

  54. [62]

    A new avenue for

    Van Niekerk, Janet and Krainski, Elias and Rustand, Denis and Rue, H. A new avenue for. 2023 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2023.107692 , journal =

    2023

  55. [63]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research , year =

    Van Niekerk, Janet and Rue, H. Journal of Machine Learning Research , year =

  56. [64]

    Big problems in spatio-temporal disease mapping:

    Orozco-Acosta, Erick and Adin, Aritz and Ugarte, María Dolores , month = apr, year =. Big problems in spatio-temporal disease mapping:. doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107403 , journal =

    2023

  57. [65]

    A first course in random matrix theory: for physicists, engineers and data scientists , isbn =

    Potters, Marc and Bouchaud, Jean-Philippe , year =. A first course in random matrix theory: for physicists, engineers and data scientists , isbn =. doi:10.1017/9781108768900 , language =

    doi

  58. [66]

    Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , author =

    Global. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , author =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1080/10618600.2020.1811105 , number =

    2021

  59. [67]

    Online structured laplace approximations for overcoming catastrophic forgetting , publisher =

    Ritter, Hippolyt and Botev, Aleksandar and Barber, David , year =. Online structured laplace approximations for overcoming catastrophic forgetting , publisher =

  60. [68]

    Gaussian

    Rue, H. Gaussian. 2005 , doi =

    2005

  61. [69]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society

    Approximate. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B: Statistical Methodology , author =. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9868.2008.00700.x , language =

    2008

  62. [70]

    and Boley, Daniel L

    Savaresi, Sergio M. and Boley, Daniel L. , month = apr, year =. On the performance of bisecting. Proceedings of the 2001. doi:10.1137/1.9781611972719.5 , urldate =

    2001 doi

  63. [71]

    Bayesian

    Särkkä, Simo , month = sep, year =. Bayesian

  64. [72]

    IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , author =

    Signal. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , author =. 2013 , pages =. doi:10.1109/MSP.2013.2259911 , number =

    2013

  65. [73]

    Frontiers in Environmental Science , author =

    The. Frontiers in Environmental Science , author =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2021.619092 , urldate =

    2021

  66. [74]

    International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management , author =

    Bayes and big data: the consensus. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management , author =. 2016 , pages =. doi:10.1080/17509653.2016.1142191 , number =

    2016

  67. [75]

    and Illian, J

    Simpson, D. and Illian, J. B. and Lindgren, F. and Sørbye, S. H. and Rue, H. , title =. Biometrika , volume =. 2016 , month =

    2016

  68. [76]

    Smith, Adam and Thakurta, Abhradeep and Upadhyay, Jalaj , month = may, year =. Is. 2017. doi:10.1109/SP.2017.35 , urldate =

    2017 doi

  69. [77]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics , author =

    Careful. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics , author =. 2019 , pages =. doi:10.1111/rssc.12321 , language =

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    Bernstein - von

    Spokoiny, Vladimir , month = apr, year =. Bernstein - von. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1302.3430 , publisher =

    doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research , author =

    Scalable. Journal of Machine Learning Research , author =. 2018 , pages =

    2018

  72. [80]

    , year =

    Toselli, Andrea and Widlund, Olof B. , year =. Domain decomposition methods--algorithms and theory , isbn =

  73. [81]

    van der , year =

    Vaart, Aad W. van der , year =. Asymptotic statistics , isbn =

  74. [82]

    Journal of Economic Perspectives , author =

    Big. Journal of Economic Perspectives , author =. 2014 , pages =. doi:10.1257/jep.28.2.3 , language =

    2014 doi

  75. [83]

    Expectation propagation as a way of life: a framework for. J. Mach. Learn. Res. , author =. 2020 , note =

    2020

  76. [84]

    Mathematical

    Vincent, Luc , editor =. Mathematical. 1988 , pages =. doi:10.1117/12.968942 , urldate =

    1988 doi

  77. [85]

    Bayesian Inference with INLA , year =

    Virgilio Gómez-Rubio , doi =. Bayesian Inference with INLA , year =. Bayesian Inference with INLA , publisher =

  78. [86]

    Statistics and Computing , author =

    A tutorial on spectral clustering , volume =. Statistics and Computing , author =. 2007 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s11222-007-9033-z , language =

    2007 doi

  79. [87]

    , month = dec, year =

    Wang, Xiangyu and Dunson, David B. , month = dec, year =. Parallelizing. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1312.4605 , publisher =

    doi arXiv

  80. [88]

    Japanese Journal of Statistics and Data Science , author =

    Information criteria and cross validation for. Japanese Journal of Statistics and Data Science , author =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s42081-021-00121-3 , number =

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , author =

    Mathematical theory of. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , author =. 2023 , file =. doi:10.1098/rsta.2022.0151 , number =

    2023

  82. [90]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks , author =

    Survey of. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks , author =. 2005 , pages =. doi:10.1109/tnn.2005.845141 , language =

    2005

  83. [91]

    Federated

    Singh, Pushpa and Singh, Murari Kumar and Singh, Rajnesh and Singh, Narendra , editor =. Federated. Federated. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  84. [92]

    SIAM Journal on Algebraic Discrete Methods , author =

    Computing the. SIAM Journal on Algebraic Discrete Methods , author =. 1981 , note =. doi:10.1137/0602010 , language =

    1981 doi

  85. [93]

    Zhang, Fuzhen , year =. The

  86. [94]

    Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application , author =

    Distributed. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application , author =. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-040522-021241 , language =

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.