We introduce Deep Jump Gaussian Processes (DJGP), a novel method for surrogate modeling of a piecewise continuous function on a high-dimensional domain. DJGP addresses the limitations of conventional Jump Gaussian Processes (JGP) in high-dimensional input spaces by integrating region-specific, locally linear projections with JGP modeling. These projections employ region-dependent matrices to capture local low-dimensional subspace structures, making them well suited to the inherently localized modeling behavior of JGPs, a variant of local Gaussian processes. To control model complexity, we place a Gaussian Process prior on the projection matrices, allowing them to evolve smoothly across the input space. The projected inputs are then modeled with a JGP to capture piecewise continuous relationships with the response. This yields a distinctive two-layer deep learning of GP/JGP. We further develop a scalable variational inference algorithm to jointly learn the projection matrices and JGP hyperparameters. Rigorous theoretical analysis and extensive empirical studies are provided to justify the proposed approach. In particular, we derive an oracle error bound for DJGP and decompose it into four distinct sources of error, which are then linked to practical implications. Experiments on synthetic and benchmark datasets demonstrate that DJGP achieves superior predictive accuracy and more reliable uncertainty quantification compared with existing methods.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustrations of response surfaces over 2D latent spaces. (a) A noiseless ground-truth regression surface with sharp transitions from the L2 dataset. (b) An example realization from the high-dimensional LH dataset, projected onto the 2D latent domain [−0.5,0.5]2 .
Dataset
DJGP(Ours)
JGP
JGP-PCA
JGP-SIR
DGP
NGBoost
BART
D
K
Feat.
R/C/C90
R/C/C90
R/C/C90
R/C/C90
R/C/C90
R/C/C90
R/C/C90
L2
20
2
AE
1.35/ 0.50 /0.87
1.43/0.53/0.78
1.42/0.52/0.77
1.83/0.78/0.79
1.40/0.68/0.95
1.37/0.58/0.79
1.32 /0.58/ 0.90
20
2
ME
1.30 / 0.50 /0.86
1.47/0.53/0.78
1.52/0.53/0.76
2.07/0.83/0.81
1.38/0.67/0.95
1.31/0.57/0.77
1.38/0.60/ 0.90
20
2
PE
1.42 / 0.52 /0.86
1.55/0.58/0.75
2.30/0.97/0.76
2.09/0.96/0.80
1.42 /0.69/0.94
1.50/0.61/0.78
1.46/0.64/ 0.91
20
2
RP
1.19 / 0.48 /0.86
1.48/0.53/0.80
1.53/0.53/0.77
1.52/0.53/0.80
1.81/0.93/0.96
1.45/0.61/0.78
1.38/0.60/ 0.90
20
2
RF
1.58/ 0.51 /0.84
1.46/0.54/0.77
1.92/0.74/0.78
2.12/0.90/0.80
1.67/0.85/0.94
1.42 /0.60/0.77
1.43/0.61/ 0.91
Table 1: Per-configuration results on RMSE, CRPS, and 90% coverage.
Method
NGBoost
BART
DJGP
JGP-PCA
DGP
Time (s)
10.0
29.5
36.9
70.5
93.7
Table 2: Wall-clock time for a single model-training run on the LH benchmark with D=50 , N=5000 , and J=500 test points. For DJGP, the reported runtime includes PLS initialization and subsequent model fitting with a fixed configuration, but excludes the additional computational cost of evaluating multiple initialization and model selection procedures used in the main benchmark experiments.
Dataset
N
D
Q
Ga
Gm
TV2
Wine Quality
6,497
11
3
0.327
9.90
8,798
Parkinson’s Telemonitoring
5,875
18
5
2.685
56.83
60,872
Appliances Energy Prediction
19,735
28
5
6.459
355.17
2,849,220
Table 3: Dataset statistics and smoothness metrics. N is the total size of the available dataset; the training and test subsets used in the experiments are described in the text.
Dataset
Method
Train=1000, Test=200
Train=5000, Test=500
RMSE ↓
CRPS ↓
Cov90 →0.90
RMSE ↓
CRPS ↓
Cov90 →0.90
Wine Quality
DJGP
0.69
0.39
0.91
0.64
0.34
0.90
JGP
0.85
0.51
0.57
0.75
0.39
0.69
JGP-PCA
0.82
0.47
0.77
0.80
0.46
0.74
JGP-SIR
0.80
0.46
0.78
0.78
0.45
0.77
DGP
0.70
0.39
0.91
0.69
0.38
0.89
Table 4: UCI benchmark results under two train/test sizes.