Machine learning - Introduction to Gaussian processes

[@maratkopytjuk3490]

Thank you, I tried to understand GP via papers, but only you could help me to build up understanding the idea. That is great that you took time to explain gaussian distribution and the important operations! You're the best!

[@MrEdnz]

Learning a new subject via papers isn’t very helpful indeed :) They expect you to understand basic principles of GP. However lectures like these or books start with the basic principles💪🏻

[@daesoolee1083]

The best tutorial for GP among all the materials I've checked.

[@augustasheimbirkeland4496]

5 minutes in and its already better than all 3 hours at class earlier today!

[@life99f]

I feel so fortunate to find this video. It's like walking in a fog and finally be able to see things clearly.

[@sourabmangrulkar9105]

The way you started from basics and built up on it to explain the Gaussian Processes is very easy to understand. Thank you :)

[@fuat7775]

This is absolutely the best explanation of the Gaussian!

[@SijinSheung]

This lecture is so amazing! The hand drawing part is really helpful to build up intuition reagarding GP. This is a life-saving video to my finals. Many thanks!

[@erlendlangseth4672]

Thanks, this helped me a lot. By the time you got to the hour mark, you had covered sufficient ground for me to finally understand gaussian processes!

[@akshayc113]

Thanks a lot Prof. Just a minor correction for the people following the lectures. You made a mistake while writing out the formulae at 22:10 You were writing out mean and variance of P(X1|X2) whereas the diagram was to find P(X2|X1). Since this is symmetric, you can just get them by appropriate replacements, but just letting slightly confused people know

[@charlsmartel]

+akshayc113 I think all that should change is the formula for the given graphs. It should read: mu_21 = mu_2 + sigma_21 sigma_11*-1 (x_1 - mu_1). Everything else can stay the same.

[@tobiaspahlberg1506]

I think he actually meant to draw x_1 where x_2 is in the diagram. This switch would agree with the KPM formulae on the next slide.

[@MattyHild]

FYI Notation @22:05 is wrong. since he selected an x1 to condition on, he should be computing mu2|1 but he is computing mu1|2

[@Ricky-Noll]

All time one of the best videos on KZbin

[@宇智波鼬337]

I've found so many lectures for understanding gaussian process. Until now you are the only one I think can make me understand it.. Thanks a lot man

[@ziangxu7751]

What an amazing lecture. It is much clearer than lectures taught in my university.

[@sarnathk1946]

This is indeed an Awesome lecture! I liked the way the complexity is slowly built over the lecture. Thank you very much!

[@AhmedAltakrouri]

thank you for sharing this, this is best lecture I ever watched that gives a gentle introduction to Gaussian Processes.

[@malharjajoo7393]

Basic summary of lecture video: 1) Recap on multivariate Normal/Gaussian distribution (MVN). - some info on conditional probability 2) Some information on how sampling can be done from Univariate/Multivariate Gaussian distribution. 3) 39:00 - Introduction to Gaussian Process (GP) It is important to note that GP is considered as a Bayesian non-parametric approach/model

[@francescocanonaco5988]

I tried to understand GP via blog article, paper and a lot of videos. Best video ever on GP! Thank you !

[@pradeepprabakarravindran615]

Thank you ! Your videos are so much awesome than any ML lecture series I have seen so far ! -- Grad Student from CMU

[@JaysonSunshine]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the whole cluster of examples starting at 36:35 flawed? Nando shows three points in a single dimension: x1, x2, x3 and their corresponding f-values: f1, f2, f3. It seems these points are three samples from a univariate normal distribution with a scalar variance, rather than what he shows, i.e. a vector from R^3 with a 3x3 covariance matrix.

[@JaysonSunshine]

On further reflection, perhaps you're doing a non-parametric approach in which you assign a Gaussian per point... ...since the distribution you're forming is empirical, it seems it would be more precise to to say the mean vector of the f-distribution is [f1, f2, f3], yes?

[@DESYAAR]

I agree. That took me a while as well.

[@DistortedV12]

Finally! This is gold for beginners like me! Thank you Nando!! Saw you o the committee at the MIT defense, great questions!

[@turkey343434]

Gaussian processes start at 1:01:15

[@hohinng8644]

pin this

[@marcyaudrey6608]

This lecture is amazing Professor. From the bottom of my heart, I say thank you.

[@bluestar2253]

One of the best teachers in ML out there!

[@Raven-bi3xn]

Am I correct to think that the "f" notation in 30':30" is not the same "f" in 1:01':30"? In the latter case, each f consists of all the 50 f distributions that are exemplified in the former case? If that understanding is correct, then in sampling from the GP, each sample is a 50by1 vector from the 50D multivariate Gaussian distribution. This 50by1 vector is what Dr. Nando refers to as "distribution over functions". In other words, given the definition of a stochastic process as "indexed random variables", each random variable of GP is drawn from a multivariate Gaussian distribution. In that viewpoint, each "indexed" random variable is a function in 1:01':30". This lecture from 2013 is truly an amazing resource.

[@dennisdoerrich3743]

Wow, you saved my life with this genius lecture ! I think it's a pretty abstract idea with GP and it's nice that you can walk one through from scratch !

[@HarpreetSingh-ke2zk]

I started learning about multivariate Gaussian processes in 2011, but it's terrible that I just got to this video when 2021 is ending. He explained things in a way that even a layperson could grasp. He first explains the meaning of the concepts, followed by an example/data, and last, theoretical representation. Typically, mathematic's presenters/writers avoid using data to provide examples. I'm always on the lookout for lectures like these, where the theoretical understanding is demonstrated through examples or data. Unless the concepts are not difficult to grasp, but the presenter/writer has made us go deep in order to open up complex notations without providing any examples.

[@KhariSecario]

Here I am in 2021, yet your explanation is the easiest one to understand from all the sources I gathered! Thank you very much 😍

[@matej6418]

me in 2023, still the same

[@huitanmao5267]

Very clear lectures ! Thanks for make them publicly available !

[@LynN-he7he]

Thank you, thank you thank you!! I was stuck on a homework problem and still figuring out what it means to be a testing vs. training data set and how the play a role in the Gaussian Kernel function. I was stuck for the last 3 days, and your video from about 45min - 1 hour mark made the lightbulb go off!

[@Gouda_travels]

after one hour of smooth explanation, he says and this brings us to Gaussian processes :)

[@jx4864]

After 30mins, I am sure that he is top 10 teacher in my life

[@malharjajoo7393]

1:04:08 - Would be good to emphasize that the test set is actually used for generating prior ... I had a hard time making sense out of it because the test set is usually provided separately (but in this case we are generating it !!)

[@emrecck]

That was a great lecture Mr.Freitas, thank you very very much! I watched it to study my Computational Biology course, and it really helped.

[@heyjianjing]

around 56:00, I don't think we should omit the condition sign on the mu*, that is conditioned on f: E(f*|f), not E(f*), otherwise, the expected value of f* alone should just be zero

[@MB-pt8hi]

Very good lecture, full of intuitive examples which deepens the understanding. Thanks a lot

[@jingjingjiang6403]

Thank you for sharing this wonderful lecture! Gaussian process was so confusing when it was taught in my university. Now it is crystal clear!

[@xinking2644]

if their is a mistake in 21:58 ? it should be condition on x1 instead of x2 ?

[@dwhdai]

wow, this is probably the best lecture I've ever watched. on any topic.

[@chenqu773]

It looks like that the notation of the axis in the graph on the right side of the presentation, @ around 20:39, is not correct. It could probably be the x1 on x-axis. I.e: it would make sense if μ12 refered to the mean of variable x1, rather than x2, judging from the equation shown on the next slide.

[@woo-jinchokim6441]

by far the best structured lecture on gaussian processes. love it :D

[@philwebb59]

1:05:58 Analog computers existed way before the first digital circuits. A WWII vintage electrical analog computer, for example, consisted of banks of op amps, configured as integrators and differentiators.

[@xingtongliu1636]

This becomes very easy to understand with your thorough explanation. Thank you very much!

[@DanielRodriguez-or7sk]

Thank you so much Professor De Freitas. What a clear explanation of GP

[@jinghuizhong]

The lecture is quite clear and it inspires me about the the key ideas of gaussian process. Many thanks!

[@MrStudent1978]

1:12:24 What is mu(x)? Is that different from mu?

[@RohitKumarGuptarkg]

Great lecture......A minor claification at 38:25 minute of the video, it is said that given X's you want to model f's. What do you exactly mean there?

[@maratkopytjuk3490]

you want to describe the similarity between the f's via the given x's. The multivariate gaussian summerizes the connection/correlation between these (three) points

[@黃翰-g1p]

isn't 22:19 the right side formula for x1|x2 not for x2|x1?

[@richardbrown2565]

Great explanation. I wish that the title mentioned that it was part one of two, so that I would have known it was going to take twice as long.

[@AnilKumarnn]

Best lecture in GP. Complement with examples in GPT or claude.

[@sanjanavijayshankar5508]

Brilliant lecture. One could not have taught GPs better.

[@taygunkekec9616]

Very clearly explained. The dependencies for learning the framework is concisely and incrementally given while details that make the framework harder to understand is elaborately evaded (You will understand what I mean if you try to dig through Rasmussen's book on GP).

[@austenscruggs8726]

This is an amazing video! Clear and digestible.

[@Jacob011]

Absolutely superb lecture! Everything is clearly explained even with source code.

[@AlqGo]

39:55 your function seems to be exponential but the mean is assumed to be 0.......that's a really confusing example Prof.

[@heyjianjing]

My understanding is that at 39:55, the mean refer to the prior information of the mean of f. Without any information, before seeing any data, zero is not a bad prior for the mean. Once you see the data, the mean is updated per equations at 56:00, here, the posterior mean is no longer zero.

[@huuducdo143]

Hello Nando, thank you for your excellent course. Following the bell example, the muy12 and sigma12 you wrote should be for the case that we are giving X2=x2 and try to find the distribution of X1 given X2=x2. Am I correct? Other understanding is welcomed. Thanks a lot!

[@quantum01010101]

That is clear and flows naturally, Thank you very much.

[@deephazarika2259]

when estimating 'f', why each point is treated as a separate dimension and not different points in the same dimension?

[@malekebadi9805]

As far as I understood, Gaussian process (regression) serves two purposes: refining the prior (and posterior) and predicting the response for new points. If you collect new observations for the same points you are refining the posterior and if you extend your new point to a new dimension, you're predicting. In the former case, the confidence interval between two points remains relatively fat. Querying for points in new dimensions (given that practically you can do that) squeeze the confidence interval. Theoretically, it doesn't matter I guess. Think of an experiment in which you keep the x the same in every iteration but you read different y's. Think of another experiment in which your x values are changing from one iteration to another and you receives y's. From GP point of view, both are the same.

[@oliverxie9559]

Really great video for reading Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning!

[@dieg3005]

Thank you very much Prof. de Freitas, excellent introduction

[@bottomupengineering]

Great explanation and pace. Very legit.

[@flashwolf994]

why should we consider the Cholesky decomposition when derive the function of sampling in prior process?

[@terrynichols-noaafederal9537]

For the noisy GP case, we assume the noise is sigma^2 * the identity matrix, which assumes iid. What if the noise is correlated, can we incorporate the true covariance matrix?

[@sak02010]

thanks a lot prof. Very clean and easy to understand explanation.

[@tospines]

I think I got the essence of GP, but what I can not understand is why we take that the mean is 0 when clearly it is not 0. I mean, if we suppose that f* will be distributed as a gaussian with mean 0, the expectation value of f* must be 0. Could anyone explain me this fact?

[@oskarkeurulainen6414]

0 is only the mean for the prior for f*. When we know values of other variables that are correlated with f*, then we actually want to consider the mean when f* is conditioned on the other observed variables. Compare with the ellipse in the beginning with x1 and x2, both have mean 0 but if we observe one of them to be positive, the other one is also likely to be positive and thus has a positive conditional expectation.

[@KristoferPettersson]

If I run the example code I get an error stating that my K_ isn't a positive-definite matrix. What am I doing wrong?

[@ilteronatkorkmaz5346]

Same here edit: Turns out I miswrote 1e-6 part

[@itai19]

Thanks for the lecture, I have a problem with the discussion around 11 - from my understanding, a spherical case does represent some correlation between X and Y, as X is a sub-component of the max radius calculation, meaning larger x leads to smaller possible values of y (or at least lower probability for higher values). In other words, the covariance can be approximated to something like E[x*sqrt(r^2-x^2)]. Are we saying that ends up being zero, i.e. correlation is unable to express such a dependency? My intuition currently understands a square to express 0 correlation

[@adrianaculebro9176]

Finally understood how this idea is explained and applied using mathematical language

[@pattiknuth4822]

Extremely good lecture. Well done.

[@afish3356]

An extremely good lecture! Thank you for recording this :) :)

[@saminebagheri4175]

amazing lecture.

[@sumantamukherjee1952]

Lucidly explained. Great video

[@kiliandervaux6675]

Thank you so much for this amazing lecture. I wanted to applaude at the end but I realised I was in front of my computer.

[@pankayarajpathmanathan7009]

The best lecture for gaussian processes

[@rajkapoor1281]

@25:10 - how is Nando making analogy between imagining/looking/updating about the world and drawing samples from the curve? trying to nail down the motivation he mentions

[@rajkapoor1281]

nm! he explains it later in the video

[@darthyzhu5767]

really clear and comprehensive. thanks so much.

[@idleft]

I have a question about the regression part which I spend a lot of time thinking. In the beginning, we are assume f_i ~ N(0,K). I think this is because for the prior purpose. At the Noiseless GP regression, we are using f as the mu. My understanding is if we had a measurement, we consider that as mu for that specific x. Is that correct? What if there are multiple measurements for same x? Thank you.

[@malekebadi9805]

Sum of two Gaussian r.v with means mu1 and mu2 is gaussian with mean mu1+mu2. Isn't it? Multiple measurements are multiple draws from the Gaussian process, so the means must be added.

[@JadtheProdigy]

Can someone explain why f is distributed with mean 0?

[@MLDawn]

23:30 did he just say that?

[@pedromaroto4633]

I do not undetstand the concept of gp prior and gp posterior. Could anyone help me? Thank you in advance!

[@maudentable]

a master doing his work

[@EbrahimLPatel]

Excellent introduction to the subject! Thank you :)

[@niqodea]

BEAST MODE teaching

[@TheTacticalDood]

This is amazing. Thanks so much!

[@katerinapapadaki4810]

Thanks for the helful lecture! The only thing I want to point out is that if you put labels on the axises on your plots, it would be more helful for the listener to understand from the begging what you describe

[@rsilveira79]

Awesome lecture, very well explained!

[@gustavodambros3818]

Could you give me the name of the text book where I can find the theorem?

[@sachingalugade8092]

Kevin Murphy's probabilistic approach to machine learning

[@GiiWiiDii]

23:56 That would be nice, thanks!

[@TheSourav77]

Lol

[@kevinzhang4692]

Thank you! It is a wonderful lecture

[@jhn-nt]

Great lecture!

[@dracleirbag5838]

I like the way you teach

[@anynamecanbeuse]

how can you assume that f(x)s are always gaussian distributed?

[@tama8092]

Maybe because we assume f(y|x) to be gaussian and marginalizing it also gives gaussian.

[@bingtingwu8620]

Thanks!!! Easy to understand👍👍👍

[@abhishekparida22]

Thank you for the lecture, and I appreciate the way you presented, spending a reasonable amount of time explaining Multivariate Gaussian distribution and building up from basics. My question to you is the following: If I happen to anticipate that the underlying distribution is Poisson (say), instead of Gaussian, WHAT will be the appropriate changes (I have an understanding its the likelihood which is modified, but not sure!). Will it still be called a Gaussian Process (or Poisson Process)?

[@bluxtina]

I get this all until 1:01, and then it just goes all over my head. I have no idea what all those lines mean.

[@erlendlangseth4672]

I think you mean 1:01:16. In my understanding, each line is one sample from the multivariate (N-dimensional) gaussian process. It is just a series of (10?) examples of functions you can sample from the GP.

[@crestz1]

Amazing lecturer

[@stanislavsmirnov4670]

Guys, do you know which textbook for this course professor was talking about?

[@henrywang2106]

Machine Learning: A Probabilistic Perspective by Kevin Murphy I believe

[@dhruv385]

Wow! Great Lecture!

[@homtom2]

This helped me so much! Thanks!

[@김수필-n4q]

Awesome explanation. thanks

[@rajupowers]

Symmetric positive definite intuition @18:00

[@rajupowers]

1:04:45