On Basis Function Selection for Sparse Gaussian Process Regression

Quantile regression aims to estimate the conditional quantiles of a response variable from observed data. In a Bayesian setting, Gaussian process quantile regression provides uncertainty quantification but faces significant computational challenges due to the nonconjugacy of the asymmetric Laplace likelihood and the cost of posterior inference. We develop a sparse Gaussian process framework in which the quantile function is represented through a reduced set of inducing variables and posterior inference is performed using a Laplace approximation. A decomposition of the predictive uncertainty into conditional-prior and posterior-induced variance components is then exploited to drive two complementary adaptive mechanisms: inducing-input infilling and data acquisition. These mechanisms are combined within a sequential algorithm that allocates computational effort toward the dominant source of predictive uncertainty and adaptively controls model complexity. Numerical experiments on benchmark problems demonstrate the accuracy of the Laplace approximation, the benefits of variance-based inducing-input placement, and the effectiveness of the proposed sequential enrichment strategy compared with predefined data-acquisition strategies.

We present a theoretically grounded Gaussian process framework that leverages neural feature maps to construct expressive kernels. We show that the learned feature map can be interpreted as an optimal low-rank approximation to a Gram matrix derived from an implied RKHS, from which we establish consistency of the GP posterior. We further analyse the spectral properties of the induced kernels and introduce product feature-map kernels to address oversmoothing. This simple yet powerful approach enables fast, scalable, and accurate exact GP inference with minimal upfront work. The flexibility of kernel design supports seamless application to both regression and classification tasks across diverse data modalities, including tabular inputs and structured domains such as images. On benchmark datasets, this approach surpasses pre-existing methods in terms of accuracy and training and prediction efficiency.

3D Gaussian Splatting represents scenes as finite mixtures of anisotropic Gaussians whose number of components $K$ is set by heuristic density control or user caps. Variational Bayes Gaussian Splatting (VBGS) recast splat fitting as conjugate variational inference, but $K$ remains fixed. We replace the finite symmetric Dirichlet over mixture weights with a truncated stick-breaking Dirichlet-process prior -- and, as a theory-backed alternative, a sparse overfitted finite Dirichlet -- so that the number of occupied components adapts to the data while every update remains a closed-form coordinate-ascent step; a natural-gradient stochastic variant makes the per-step cost independent of the number of points. We give an exact monotonicity guarantee, a rigorous truncation-error bound correcting an anti-conservative large-$α$ approximation in common use, and an honest account of what the fitted number of components estimates. Empirically: (i) the effective complexity $\hat{K}$ adapts to scene complexity and recovers the true $K$ within $\pm 1$ on well-separated synthetic data with regime-appropriate concentration; (ii) a deconfounded comparison shows the DP prior's contribution is complexity selection, not per-component efficiency -- converged DP fits exceed single-pass fixed-$K$ VBGS by +2.7 dB at matched budgets yet tie an equally converged fixed-$K$ baseline, and on 3D scenes DP-Splat matches or exceeds VBGS's held-out color prediction with 5.9-7.6x fewer components; (iii) the posterior-predictive color variance is well calibrated on model-matched synthetic data; and (iv) the ordering suggested by exact-posterior asymptotics reverses under mean-field coordinate ascent: the DP prior resists over-splitting while the sparse finite mixture saturates its truncation, a gap between variational practice and posterior asymptotics documented across three orders of magnitude in $N$.