Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Convolution-Based Converter : A Weak-Prior Approach For Modeling Stochastic Processes Based On Conditional Density Estimation

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A convolutional converter trained to match observed values is claimed to implicitly estimate the conditional distribution of a stochastic process's targets, with no Markov or Gaussian prior, and to outperform strong-prior baselines.

desk verdict The paper claims conditional density estimation but never defines a density; the MSE objective only matches observations, so the central claim and NLL tables are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06829 v2 pith:KYOPCKUJ submitted 2025-02-05 cs.LG cs.AI

Chaoran Pang , Lin Wang , Shuangrong Liu , Shikun Tian , WenHao Yue , Xingshen Zhang , Bo Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI MSC 62M4568T07
keywords stochasticprocessmodelingconditionaldensityestimationweakpriorconvolutionalnetworkGaussianMarkovimagecompletionlimiteddata
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

The paper proposes Convolution-Based Converter (CBC), a method for estimating the conditional distribution $P(X(T)\mid X(S)=O)$ of the target variables of a stochastic process given observed values, without imposing the fixed priors that Markov-chain and Gaussian-process models rely on. Instead of assuming a functional form for the dependency structure, CBC trains a convolutional-deconvolutional network to transform trajectories of an initial white-noise process into trajectories that agree with the observations, and claims the resulting outputs are draws from the true conditional distribution. This matters because strong-prior methods can fail badly when their assumptions are mismatched, while neural conditional-density estimators typically need large datasets; CBC claims adaptability across process types and graceful behavior with limited data, and demonstrates both on synthetic 1-D processes and on image completion in MNIST and CIFAR-10.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Convolution-Based Converter itself: a network that samples an initial white-noise process, passes it through several MLP layers to build a preliminary dependency structure, then through stacked convolutional layers whose sliding kernels combine local dependencies into progressively longer-range ones, with a final layer mapping outputs to the desired range; a deconvolutional Smooth variant handles smooth processes and a 2-D variant handles images. The load-bearing training signal is the mean-squared-error loss at observation sites, which substitutes for the indicator constraint in the integral definition of the conditional distribution, and the convolutional architecture is what turns constraints at observed random variables into estimates at unobserved ones by acting as a learned covariance-like structure not bound by positive-definiteness or memorylessness.

What would settle it

On a toy process with a known analytic conditional distribution, such as the Gaussian process with the paper's own kernel, train CBC and generate many completed trajectories for fixed observations, then compare the empirical distribution at target indices with the analytic conditional using a proper scoring rule; if the samples collapse to a point mass as the MSE loss goes to zero, or the spread disagrees with the true conditional, the implicit-density claim fails. A second, simpler check is to recover the paper's NLL computation, since the model as described outputs point trajectories and the reported NLL values require a density that the paper never specifies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that an observation-matching transformation of noise trajectories can stand in for explicit conditional density estimation. Writing the process as $X(i)=Q_\theta(\omega,i)$ with $\omega$ an auxiliary random variable, the conditional $P(X(T)\mid X(S)=O)$ is expressed through Bayes' rule as a ratio of integrals over $\omega$ containing the indicator constraint $1\{X(S)=O\}$. Because the indicator is not differentiable, the paper replaces it with the mean-squared-error loss $L(\theta)=\mathbb{E}_\omega\left[\sum_{s\in S}(Q_\theta(\omega,s)-O_s)^2\right]$ at the observed sites, and argues that minimizing this loss over the full trajectory generator implicitly enforces the conditioning constraint. The network's convolutional layers then propagate the observational constraint across the trajectory, so targets are estimated through the dependencies the convolution constructs; the learned kernel functions as a learnable covariance structure free of the Gaussian positive-definiteness or Markov memorylessness assumptions. After training, re-sampling $\omega$ and running the converter yields trajectories the paper treats as samples from the conditional distribution, with the prior residing in the architecture rather than in a fixed distributional form.

Load-bearing premise

If matching a few observed points does not force the unobserved outputs to follow the true conditional distribution of targets given observations, the central claim collapses, because the paper never derives that link and never defines a density over the targets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single converter handles Gaussian, independent uniform, and Markov-type processes without per-problem redesign, whereas GP, HMM, and WGP each fail on at least one of these when their prior is mismatched.
  • In limited-data regimes (for example 50 observed points in the 1-D experiments), CBC clearly outperforms the neural density network DDN, supporting the claim of weak-prior generalization with scarce data.
  • Image completion reduces to conditioning a 2-D stochastic process: as the number of observed pixels grows from 100 to 784 on MNIST, the model's estimated conditional distribution sharpens and the completed image approaches the original.
  • The convolutional kernel can be read as a learned covariance structure, so the approach extends to dependencies that are non-Gaussian, non-stationary, or long-range in ways that kernel-based Gaussian processes cannot express.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Read as an implicit generative model, CBC is closer to a conditional push-forward sampler than to a density estimator: the white-noise prior plus the deterministic network defines a distribution over trajectories, and the MSE constraint is a moment-matching condition, so the natural comparison class includes generative-conditional models rather than only density estimators.
  • Because convolution's locality and weight-sharing are themselves inductive biases, the paper's weak prior is more precisely a prior placed in the architecture rather than in the distribution; on index sets without a translation structure, such as irregular graphs or non-grid spatial data, the method would need a different dependency constructor and the claimed advantage may not transfer automatica
  • A testable extension is a head-to-head comparison with learned-kernel or deep Gaussian processes: if the advantage of CBC comes from avoiding fixed priors, the gap should shrink as the kernel becomes more flexible, and the comparison would locate where architectural priors beat learned distributional priors.
  • To make the reported NLL values reproducible, the converter would need an explicit density over targets, for example a flow or mixture head; adding one is a natural follow-up that would also let the implicit-density claim be verified directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Convolution-Based Converter (CBC), a neural network that maps white-noise input trajectories to output trajectories constrained to match observations at specified locations, with the stated goal of implicitly estimating the conditional density P(X(T)|X(S)=O) for stochastic processes under weak prior assumptions. The method is evaluated with negative log-likelihood on three synthetic 1-D processes (Gaussian, uniform, Markov) with 50/100/150 observations, and on MNIST/CIFAR image completion treated as 2-D stochastic processes, comparing against GP, WGP, HMM, and DDN. The central claims are that CBC implicitly estimates the conditional distribution without strong priors and outperforms baselines across multiple metrics.

Significance. If the claims were established, a weak-prior conditional density estimator that works in limited-data regimes would be a useful contribution to stochastic process modeling and image completion. The paper also has a conceptually attractive framing: representing trajectories as transformations of an initial white-noise process and using convolutional architectures to capture dependencies. However, the manuscript does not establish its central claim: the derivation in Section 3.1 does not show that the MSE objective in Eq. (4) estimates a conditional density, and the experimental protocol does not specify the predictive density used to compute NLL for CBC. Until those gaps are filled, the significance of the empirical comparisons cannot be assessed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (1)-(4)] The central claim that CBC 'implicitly estimates the conditional probability distribution' is not supported by the derivation. Eq. (4) defines an MSE regression loss at observed locations, which identifies at most the conditional mean of the output process (under a quadratic loss), not the full conditional density. Infinitely many conditional distributions share the same conditional mean, so the argument that minimizing this loss differentiably enforces the indicator constraint in Eq. (2) and thereby induces the target conditional distribution requires a proof or at least a precise statement of the induced predictive distribution over X(T); no such statement or proof is given.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3)] Eq. (3) appears miswritten: the marginal probability P(X(S)=O) should integrate the indicator 1{X(S)=O} over the initial random variable, not the joint indicator 1{X(S)=O, X(T)} that appears in Eq. (2). As written, Eqs. (2) and (3) have the same integrand, which would make the ratio in Eq. (1) equal to 1 and is inconsistent with the intended Bayesian identity. This needs to be corrected and the subsequent argument re-derived.
  3. [Tables 1-3 and Section 4.1] The NLL values reported for CBC are not reproducible because the paper never specifies the predictive density used to compute them. Since the trained network is a deterministic map Q_theta(omega, s) from noise to trajectories, one needs to know what conditional distribution over targets is assumed (e.g., Gaussian centered at the output, a mixture, or a kernel density estimate) and how its parameters are obtained. Without this specification, the comparison of CBC against GP, WGP, HMM, and DDN in Tables 1-3 is not a valid assessment of conditional density estimation performance, and the claimed 'outperforms' results cannot be checked.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Tables 1-3] The experimental design is too weak to support the generalization claims. Each dataset consists of only three test sequences of length 200, and the reported numbers are presented without variance, error bars, or a description of how the NLL is averaged across sequences and masked configurations. With such a small evaluation set, the observed differences (e.g., CBC vs. GP on the GP dataset, or CBC vs. DDN on the uniform dataset) are not established as statistically meaningful, and the claim that CBC 'maintains comparable performance' across mismatched priors is not quantified.
  5. [Section 4.2 and Tables 2-3] The image completion experiments select 'the top 10 images' from MNIST and CIFAR-10 without specifying the selection criterion, the number of test images, or the training/test split. This makes the reported pixel-wise NLL comparisons unreliable and potentially cherry-picked. Moreover, the same missing-likelihood issue from Tables 1-3 applies here: the paper does not state what density CBC induces over pixels, so the NLL values in Tables 2 and 3 cannot be interpreted.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'multiple metrics' in the abstract is not accurate: the experimental section uses only negative log-likelihood; there are no other quantitative metrics such as MSE, coverage, or calibration.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (2)] The indicator function is written with two arguments but defined only in terms of X(S)=O; the notation 1{X(S)=O, X(T)} should either be defined explicitly or replaced with 1{X(S)=O} to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (6)-(8)] The equations for the MLP and convolution layers are not fully specified: the summation indices and bias terms are inconsistent (e.g., Eq. (6) sums over k but the terms involve w_{j,i} and b_j), and the lack of input/output dimension specifications makes the architecture description incomplete.
  4. [Section 4.1] The text says 'three denotes the number of test sequences' but does not specify the number of training sequences or how training and test sets are separated; this makes the 'limited data' claim ambiguous.
  5. [Figure 1 and Figure 2] The figures are dense and the labels (a)-(d), (d1)-(d3) are not fully explained in the captions; in particular, the difference between the base Convolution Converter and the Smooth Convolution Converter is not made precise in the text.
  6. [References and notation] There are several typographical issues, including inconsistent rendering of 'stochastic process' (e.g., 'Markovsses' in several reference entries) and the use of 'Wrapped' vs. 'Warped' Gaussian Process; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The Bayesian derivation of the conditional density collapses: Eq. (3) repeats the joint-event integrand of Eq. (2), so Eq. (1) becomes 1 by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, Eq. (3) and its substitution into Eq. (1)]
    "The marginal probability is likewise obtained via integration, considering only the probability of the observed portion: P (X(S) =O) = Z 1{X(S) =O, X(T )} p(w) dw (3)"

    Equation (2) defines the numerator as ∫1{X(S)=O, X(T)}p(w)dw. Equation (3) defines the marginal denominator using exactly the same integrand, rather than 1{X(S)=O}. Substituting (2) and (3) into Bayes' rule in Eq. (1) gives P(X(T)|X(S)=O) = [same integral]/[same integral] = 1 identically for every target configuration. The target conditional density is thus assumed by construction: the denominator is the numerator, so the claimed estimation of P(X(T)|X(S)=O) reduces to a ratio of a quantity to itself. The later MSE surrogate in Eq. (4) does not repair this, because the paper explicitly presents Eqs. (1)-(3) as the Bayesian justification for the method.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that CBC 'implicitly estimates the conditional probability distribution P(X(T)|X(S)=O)' using a Bayesian framework. That derivation is circular at Eq. (3): the marginal probability is written with the joint-event indicator 1{X(S)=O, X(T)}, making the denominator of Eq. (1) identical to the numerator. Consequently the conditional distribution is forced to be 1 by definition, not inferred from data. This is a concrete, quotable self-definitional reduction, not a mere gap in exposition. The network training in Eq. (4) and the experiments are separate components, but the paper uses Eqs. (1)-(3) as the theoretical basis for calling the output a conditional density, so the core derivation reduces by construction. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears; the references to prior work are not used to forbid alternatives. The reported NLL values in Tables 1-3 are never accompanied by a stated likelihood or density for CBC, which is a serious reproducibility and correctness problem, but it is not itself a circular step. Because the central theoretical derivation is forced by definition, the circularity score is 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the ad hoc assumption that an MSE loss at observations approximates a conditional density constraint, plus network expressiveness assumptions. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced, but the method's validity rests on an unproven equivalence.

free parameters (2)
  • Network hyperparameters (number of layers, kernel sizes, noise sequence length) = chosen by hand (e.g., 3 MLP layers, 5 transposed conv layers, kernel size 1, noise length 5)
    No ablations or sensitivity analysis are provided, so the reported performance may depend on these unstated choices.
  • Predictive density used for NLL evaluation = not stated
    The NLL tables require an assumed output distribution (e.g., Gaussian variance) that the paper never defines; the metric may reduce to a fitted value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Any target stochastic process can be represented as a transformation Qθ of a Gaussian white noise process (Eq. 5, Section 3.1).
    The method relies on the initial white noise being expressive enough after the network transformation to approximate arbitrary dependencies; no guarantee is given.
  • ad hoc to paper MSE matching at observed points approximates the indicator constraint in Eq. (2) and thereby enforces the conditional distribution.
    This is the central fragile assumption; a pointwise regression loss does not constrain target distributions or uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Convolutional kernels and layered deconvolution can capture long-range and hierarchical dependencies of stochastic processes.
    Section 3.2 claims convolution learns a 'learnable covariance structure' without proof; receptive field limits may restrict long-range dependencies.
  • standard math Bayes' theorem decomposition in Eq. (1) is standard.
    Used to frame the conditional; not problematic in itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Convolution-Based Converter : A Weak-Prior Approach For Modeling Stochastic Processes Based On Conditional Density Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYOPCKUJ

@misc{pith2026250206829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Convolution-Based Converter : A Weak-Prior Approach For Modeling Stochastic Processes Based On Conditional Density Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYOPCKUJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06829}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, a Convolution-Based Converter (CBC) is proposed to develop a methodology for removing the strong or fixed priors in estimating the probability distribution of targets based on observations in the stochastic process. Traditional approaches, e.g., Markov-based and Gaussian process-based methods, typically leverage observations to estimate targets based on strong or fixed priors (such as Markov properties or Gaussian prior). However, the effectiveness of these methods depends on how well their prior assumptions align with the characteristics of the problem. When the assumed priors are not satisfied, these approaches may perform poorly or even become unusable. To overcome the above limitation, we introduce the Convolution-Based converter (CBC), which implicitly estimates the conditional probability distribution of targets without strong or fixed priors, and directly outputs the expected trajectory of the stochastic process that satisfies the constraints from observations. This approach reduces the dependence on priors, enhancing flexibility and adaptability in modeling stochastic processes when addressing different problems. Experimental results demonstrate that our method outperforms existing baselines across multiple metrics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06829 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The framework of Convolution-Based Converter (CBC) consists of four successive parts:(a) a input initial stochastic process ,(b) a constructor that establishes preliminary dependency (c) A Convolution-Based Converter that constructs the dependencies among random variables in the stochastic process (d) The output expected stochastic process. The modeling effect is shown in (d2), where (d1) represents restricting the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Smooth Convolution-Converter:the framework is as the same as the Fig1,the difference is replacing the base Convolution￾Converter with a Smooth Convolution-Converter to accommodate the modeling of smooth stochastic processes,and d(3) is the expected stochastic process CBC does not impose strong or fixed priors. Instead, it strives to achieve greater flexibility and adaptability within a weak prior framework, allowing… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 1-D Stochastic Process. We present the modeling results on 1-D data generated from the Gaussian Process, Uniform Process, and Markov Process (arranged from top to bottom). For each dataset, observations are set at positions [20, 30, 50]. The red markers indicate the observations,and the blue regions represent the estimating results of the methods. Left: the estimating results of CBC Right: the estimating results of … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 2-D stochastic process on the MNIST dataset. Left: Original Image. Right: From bottom to top, there are images with [100, 200, 500, and 784] observations(blue pixels denote the pixels of targets that have been masked ), respectively, the middle row displays sampled ima…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Linear stochastic differential equation models for panel data with unobserved variables

    Arminger, G. Linear stochastic differential equation models for panel data with unobserved variables. Sociological methodology, 16: 0 187--212, 1986

    work page 1986

  2. [2]

    and Mazumdar, R

    Balakrishnan, A. and Mazumdar, R. R. On powers of gaussian white noise. IEEE transactions on information theory, 57 0 (11): 0 7629--7634, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    E., Finley, A

    Banerjee, S., Gelfand, A. E., Finley, A. O., and Sang, H. Gaussian predictive process models for large spatial data sets. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 70 0 (4): 0 825--848, 2008

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Bishop, C. M. Mixture density networks. 1994

    1994

  5. [5]

    Bishop, C. M. and Nasrabadi, N. M. Pattern recognition and machine learning, volume 4. Springer, 2006

    2006

  6. [6]

    Numerical methods for strong solutions of stochastic differential equations: an overview

    Burrage, K., Burrage, P., and Tian, T. Numerical methods for strong solutions of stochastic differential equations: an overview. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 460 0 (2041): 0 373--402, 2004

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Deconvolutional density network: Modeling free-form conditional distributions

    Chen, B., Islam, M., Gao, J., and Wang, L. Deconvolutional density network: Modeling free-form conditional distributions. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pp.\ 6183--6192, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Chen, Z., Wang, B., and Gorban, A. N. Multivariate gaussian and student-t process regression for multi-output prediction. Neural Computing and Applications, 32: 0 3005--3028, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Chung, K. L. Markov chains. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1967

    1967

  2. [10]

    Craig, B. A. and Sendi, P. P. Estimation of the transition matrix of a discrete-time markov chain. Health economics, 11 0 (1): 0 33--42, 2002

    2002

  3. [11]

    Doob, J. L. What is a markovss? The American Mathematical Monthly, 49 0 (10): 0 648--653, 1942

    1942

  4. [12]

    Stochastic modeling in economics and finance, volume 75

    Dupacova, J., Hurt, J., and Stepan, J. Stochastic modeling in economics and finance, volume 75. Springer Science & Business Media, 2002

    2002

  5. [13]

    Eddy, S. R. Hidden markov models. Current opinion in structural biology, 6 0 (3): 0 361--365, 1996

    1996

  6. [14]

    An introduction to probability theory and its applications, Volume 2, volume 81

    Feller, W. An introduction to probability theory and its applications, Volume 2, volume 81. John Wiley & Sons, 1991

    1991

  7. [15]

    W., Rezende, D., and Eslami, S

    Garnelo, M., Rosenbaum, D., Maddison, C., Ramalho, T., Saxton, D., Shanahan, M., Teh, Y. W., Rezende, D., and Eslami, S. A. Conditional neural processes. In International conference on machine learning, pp.\ 1704--1713. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Discrete-time markov chain approach to contact-based disease spreading in complex networks

    G \'o mez, S., Arenas, A., Borge-Holthoefer, J., Meloni, S., and Moreno, Y. Discrete-time markov chain approach to contact-based disease spreading in complex networks. Europhysics Letters, 89 0 (3): 0 38009, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    and Urbach, P

    Howson, C. and Urbach, P. Scientific reasoning: the Bayesian approach. Open Court Publishing, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    Multifractal analysis of financial markets: A review

    Jiang, Z.-Q., Xie, W.-J., Zhou, W.-X., and Sornette, D. Multifractal analysis of financial markets: A review. Reports on Progress in Physics, 82 0 (12): 0 125901, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Robust gaussian process regression with a student-t likelihood

    Jyl \"a nki, P., Vanhatalo, J., and Vehtari, A. Robust gaussian process regression with a student-t likelihood. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12 0 (11), 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    E., Platen, E., Kloeden, P

    Kloeden, P. E., Platen, E., Kloeden, P. E., and Platen, E. Stochastic differential equations. Springer, 1992

    1992

  13. [21]

    Bayesian warped gaussian processes

    L \'a zaro-Gredilla, M. Bayesian warped gaussian processes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 25, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition

    LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., and Haffner, P. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86 0 (11): 0 2278--2324, 1998

    1998

  15. [23]

    Stabilization of continuous-time hybrid stochastic differential equations by discrete-time feedback control

    Mao, X. Stabilization of continuous-time hybrid stochastic differential equations by discrete-time feedback control. Automatica, 49 0 (12): 0 3677--3681, 2013

    2013

  16. [24]

    Markovsses: estimation, optimisation and analysis

    Najim, K., Ikonen, E., and Daoud, A.-K. Markovsses: estimation, optimisation and analysis. Elsevier, 2004

    2004

  17. [25]

    N., Madsen, H., and Young, P

    Nielsen, J. N., Madsen, H., and Young, P. C. Parameter estimation in stochastic differential equations: an overview. Annual Reviews in Control, 24: 0 83--94, 2000

    2000

  18. [26]

    Stochastic control theory

    Nisio, M. Stochastic control theory. ISI Lecture Notes, 9, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Stochastic differential equations: an introduction with applications

    Oksendal, B. Stochastic differential equations: an introduction with applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    V., Jonsson, N., Torn e, C

    Overgaard, R. V., Jonsson, N., Torn e, C. W., and Madsen, H. Non-linear mixed-effects models with stochastic differential equations: implementation of an estimation algorithm. Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 32: 0 85--107, 2005

    2005

  21. [29]

    Pavliotis, G. A. Markovsses and applications. Texts in applied mathematics, 60, 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    An introduction to numerical methods for stochastic differential equations

    Platen, E. An introduction to numerical methods for stochastic differential equations. Acta numerica, 8: 0 197--246, 1999

    1999

  23. [31]

    Efficient approximation of sdes driven by countably dimensional wiener process and poisson random measure

    Przyby owicz, P., Sobieraj, M., and Stȩpień, . Efficient approximation of sdes driven by countably dimensional wiener process and poisson random measure. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 60 0 (2): 0 824--855, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Rabiner, L. R. A tutorial on hidden markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77 0 (2): 0 257--286, 1989

    1989

  25. [33]

    On markovsses in biology

    Reid, A. On markovsses in biology. Biometrics, 9 0 (3): 0 275--289, 1953

    1953

  26. [34]

    E., Hinton, G

    Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., and Williams, R. J. Learning representations by back-propagating errors. nature, 323 0 (6088): 0 533--536, 1986

    1986

  27. [35]

    Gaussian processes for machine learning

    Seeger, M. Gaussian processes for machine learning. International journal of neural systems, 14 0 (02): 0 69--106, 2004

    2004

  28. [36]

    Student-t processes as alternatives to gaussian processes

    Shah, A., Wilson, A., and Ghahramani, Z. Student-t processes as alternatives to gaussian processes. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, pp.\ 877--885. PMLR, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    J., Tavangar, K., Price-Whelan, A., and Bonaca, A

    Starkman, N., Nibauer, J., Bovy, J., Webb, J. J., Tavangar, K., Price-Whelan, A., and Bonaca, A. Stream members only: Data-driven characterization of stellar streams with mixture density networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16960, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Van Kampen, N. G. Stochastic differential equations. Physics reports, 24 0 (3): 0 171--228, 1976

    1976

  31. [39]

    Numerical methods for stochastic differential equations

    Wilkie, J. Numerical methods for stochastic differential equations. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 70 0 (1): 0 017701, 2004

    2004

  32. [40]

    and Rasmussen, C

    Williams, C. and Rasmussen, C. Gaussian processes for regression. Advances in neural information processing systems, 8, 1995

    1995

  33. [41]

    G., Knowles, D

    Wilson, A. G., Knowles, D. A., and Ghahramani, Z. Gaussian process regression networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1110.4411, 2011

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.