Online Gradient Computation for Warping Gaussian Process Transformations

Gaussian processes (GPs) provide a non-parametric Bayesian framework for probabilistic function approximation [16], proving especially useful when the true underlying function is analytically unknown or expensive to query [22, 19]. By placing a prior directly over the space of functions of interest, GPs offer a principled approach to uncertainty quantification, making them particularly attractive for applications where predictive confidence is as critical as point accuracy; for instance, in robotics [5] or geostatistics [7, 6]. Crucially, the mathematical tractability of GPs allows for exact Bayesian inference, yielding closed-form predictive distributions when paired with Gaussian function observation likelihoods.

Despite their widespread success, standard GPs are fundamentally limited by their core assumption that the function observations are adequately modeled by a joint Gaussian distribution. Indeed, this assumption often breaks down in practice, as real-world observations may exhibit heavy tails, distinct skewness, or physical constraints (such as strict positivity). Consequently, applying standard GPs to such non-Gaussian observations can produce highly inaccurate predictions and poorly calibrated uncertainty bounds.

Motivated by these limitations, warped GPs [21] extend standard GPs by applying a parametric transformation—termed warping—to non-Gaussian observations, mapping them into latent targets where standard GP assumptions hold. By jointly estimating latent GP moments and warping parameters, warped GPs accommodate complex observation likelihoods while retaining the analytical tractability of standard GPs.

However, the implementation of warped GPs in memory-constrained or real-time tasks remains a significant challenge. This is because, to the best of our knowledge, there is no online method to jointly update the latent GP moments and optimize the warping parameters of warped GPs. The methods arguably closest to this work in the literature either optimize the warping parameters periodically [12] or trade analytical tractability for higher model capacity [2].

In this paper, we show that the gradient of the negative log-likelihood (NLL) of a warped GP can be computed recursively in a exact manner. Based on this, we propose a novel online method for warped GPs that jointly updates the latent GP moments and optimizes the warping parameters.

Consider the problem of inferring an unknown, real-valued function $f$ over an arbitrary $d$-dimensional input space $\mathcal{X}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{d}$, based on prior beliefs about its function space and a set of $n$ (possibly corrupted) function observations $y_{1},\dots,y_{n}$ at corresponding input locations $\bm{x}_{1},\dots,\bm{x}_{n}$.

Such a problem can be addressed analytically, provided certain assumptions hold, as we detail next.

The $n$-observation joint NLL

measures the discrepancy between the observations $\bm{y}_{n}$ and the joint probability density $p$ (implicitly) described by the warping parameters $\bm{\theta}$. Using the multiplication rule of probability [17], one can readily get that

where the instantaneous NLL

quantifies how unexpected the last observation $y_{n}$ was given the previous observations $\bm{y}_{n-1}$.

In many applications, the set of observations $y_{1},\dots,y_{n}$ is too large to fit in memory, or is streamed, rendering standard batch processing intractable. As a result, estimating the warping parameters by directly minimizing the NLL in (9) with respect to $\bm{\theta}$ may not be possible in practice. On the other hand, by exploiting the additive decomposition of the NLL in (10), one can naturally transition from a batch to an online estimation framework. Specifically, the warping parameter estimate can be iteratively refined utilizing the gradient of the instantaneous NLL, e.g., by a first-order method [1].

Although evaluating every instantaneous NLL $\ell_{n}(\bm{\theta})$ depends on the previous observations $\bm{y}_{n-1}$, Theorem 3.1 demonstrates that its gradient can be computed recursively.

As a result, the gradient of the instantaneous NLL $\nabla_{\bm{\theta}}\ell_{n}(\bm{\theta})$ can be updated recursively as each new observation $y_{n}$ and associated input location $\bm{x}_{n}$ become available by maintaining $\bm{\alpha}_{n}$, $\bm{\Omega}_{n}$ (as in Sec. 2.1.1), and $\bm{B}_{n}$ as state variables.

Algorithm 1 outlines the proposed online method for warped GPs, which jointly updates the latent GP moments and optimizes the warping parameters. It integrates the recursive GP updates from Sec. 2.1.1, the recursive gradient computation of the instantaneous NLL from Sec. 3, and the ALD sparsification technique introduced in Sec. 2.1.2. As a result, the update rule (12) yields an approximate gradient.

The per-step computational and memory complexity is $\mathcal{O}(D_{n}^{2}+rD_{n})$. We refer the reader to the supplementary material S2 and S3 for further details.

To evaluate our proposed method, we adapt the simple 1D regression task introduced in [21, Sec. 4] to an online setting. This task is specifically designed to generate non-Gaussian observations with sharp transitions, causing standard GPs to fail; therefore, relying entirely on the modeling capabilities of the warped GP.

Experimental setup. The input domain is the real subset $\mathcal{X}=[-\pi,\pi]\subset\mathbb{R}$. The observational data are generated from a sinusoidal signal corrupted by white Gaussian noise followed by a cubic root transformation. That is, every $n$th observation is generated as $y_{n}=(\sin(x_{n})+\varepsilon_{n})^{\frac{1}{3}}$ with $\varepsilon_{n}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\frac{1}{3^{2}})$. Then, we generate $1000$ realizations of $101$ uniformly spaced observations each. That is, a total of $101000$ observations, input location pairs that are fed sequentially to the warped GP model.

Model configuration. The choice of warping transformation follows that of the revisited task. That is, $g(y;\bm{\theta})=y+\sum^{t}_{i=1}\theta_{1,i}\tanh(\theta_{2,i}(y+\theta_{3,i}))$, where $\bm{\theta}=[\bm{\theta}_{1}^{\top},\bm{\theta}_{2}^{\top},\bm{\theta}_{3}^{\top}]^{\top}\in\Theta$, and $\Theta=\{\bm{\theta}\in\mathbb{R}^{3t}:\bm{\theta}_{1},\bm{\theta}_{2}\succeq\bm{0}_{t},\bm{1}_{t}^{\top}\bm{\theta}_{1}>0,\text{ and }\bm{1}_{t}^{\top}\bm{\theta}_{2}>0\}$, to ensure monotonicity. We use $t=10$ terms, which leads to a total of $r=30$ warping parameters. Similarly, the choice of the covariance function remains the same, i.e., $\kappa(x,x^{\prime})=k_{a}\exp(-\frac{1}{2k_{w}^{2}}(x-x^{\prime})^{2})$, with $k_{a}=2$, and $k_{w}=2\cdot\frac{2\pi}{101}\approx 0.124$. Lastly, the noise standard deviation of the latent observation model is set to $\sigma=3$.

Implementation details. We use the Adam¹¹ 1 Pytorch [14] default configuration. optimizer [11], followed by a projection onto the feasible set $\Theta$. We set the ALD threshold to $\nu=0.1$.

Results. The results of the experiment are summarized in Fig. 2. Fig. 2a shows that the predictions of the warped GP closely align with the true generating distribution. On the other hand, Fig. 2b shows that the learned warped transformation closely resembles the true generating cubic transformations in the region of interest where most observations $y$ lie, i.e., $-1\lesssim y\lesssim 1$. It also shows that its inversion is numerically stable. The (ALD sparsification) dictionary ends up with $68$ atoms. Finally, the warped GP achieves an empirical NLL of $-0.28$ nats per observation. This is a $0.76$ nat improvement over a standard GP under an identical model configuration except for a well-calibrated noise variance.

We presented a recursive gradient evaluation for the instantaneous NLL of warped GPs, requiring only one extra state variable over standard recursive implementations. Building on this result, we introduced an online algorithm for jointly updating latent GP moments and optimizing warping parameters, demonstrating its performance on a warped GP benchmark. Future work includes online learning of the kernel parameters (or directly a suitable kernel [18]) and the observation model noise variance; evaluations on broader benchmarks are underway.

The NLL in (9) corresponds to

Its gradient with respect to the warping parameters $\bm{\theta}$ is thus,

where

The first term in (s2b) can be expanded by using the recursive representation of $\bm{\Omega}_{n}$ described in (5b) as

where

Note that $e_{n}$ already admits a recursive update rule since it is expressed in terms of the current latent target $z_{n}$ and its corresponding location $\bm{x}_{n}$, and the previous state terms $\bm{\alpha}_{n-1}$ and $\bm{\Omega}_{n-1}$. Explicitly,

Regarding $\bm{b}_{n}$, we maintain an additional state term $\bm{B}_{n}=\dot{\bm{Z}}_{n}\bm{\Omega}_{n}\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times n}$ to enable recursive updates. Specifically,

and accordingly,

Substituting (s4c) in (s2b) we get

Finally, by taking the gradient with respect to the warping parameters $\bm{\theta}$ in both sides of (10) and identifying terms with (s9) we obtain

Consider a feature mapping $\phi:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{F}$ such that $\kappa(\bm{x},\bm{x}^{\prime})=\langle\phi(\bm{x}),\phi(\bm{x}^{\prime})\rangle_{\mathcal{F}}$ for all $\bm{x},\bm{x}^{\prime}\in\mathcal{X}$, an ongoing trajectory of input locations $\bm{x}_{1},\bm{x}_{2},\dots,\bm{x}_{n-1}$, and a dictionary (sparse set) $\mathcal{D}_{n-1}\subseteq\mathcal{X}$ of representative input locations collected across that trajectory.

Every time a new input location $\bm{x}_{n}$ is presented, we check whether its feature representation $\phi(\bm{x}_{n})$ is approximately linearly dependent on the feature representation of the previously collected input locations $\tilde{\bm{x}}_{1},\tilde{\bm{x}}_{2},\dots,\tilde{\bm{x}}_{D_{n-1}}$ in $\mathcal{D}_{n-1}$ where $D_{n}=|\mathcal{D}_{n}|$. That is, we check whether the squared distance $\delta_{n}$ between $\phi(\bm{x}_{n})$ and $\text{span}\{\phi(\tilde{\bm{x}}_{1}),\phi(\tilde{\bm{x}}_{2}),\dots,\phi(\tilde{\bm{x}}_{D_{n-1}})\}$ is less than or equal to a user-defined threshold $\nu\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$. If it is, the dictionary remains the same, i.e., $\mathcal{D}_{n}=\mathcal{D}_{n-1}$. If not, we update the dictionary to include the new input location, i.e., $\mathcal{D}_{n}=\mathcal{D}_{n-1}\cup\{\bm{x}_{n}\}$.

Explicitly,

where $\tilde{\bm{K}}_{n}\in\mathbb{R}^{D_{n}\times D_{n}}$ and $\tilde{\bm{k}}_{n}(\bm{x})\in\mathbb{R}^{D_{n}}$ are constructed as $[\tilde{\bm{K}}_{n}]_{i,j}=\kappa(\tilde{\bm{x}}_{i},\tilde{\bm{x}}_{j})$ and $[\tilde{\bm{k}}_{n}(\bm{x})]_{i}=\kappa(\tilde{\bm{x}}_{i},\bm{x})$ for all $\tilde{\bm{x}}_{i},\tilde{\bm{x}}_{j}\in\mathcal{D}_{n}$ and $\bm{x}\in\mathcal{X}$. Thus, finding $\delta_{n}$ consists of solving a convex quadratic optimization problem with a closed-form solution

From here, if $\bm{x}_{n}$ is included in $\mathcal{D}_{n}$ (meaning that $\delta_{n}>\nu$), we set the approximation coefficients as $\bm{a}_{n}=[0,\dots,0,1]^{\top}\in\{0\}^{D_{n}-1}\times\{1\}\subset\mathbb{R}^{D_{n}}$ since $\phi(\bm{x}_{n})$ can be exactly represented by itself. If not (meaning that $\delta_{n}\leq\nu$), we set $\bm{a}_{n}=\hat{\bm{a}}_{n}$ with $\hat{\bm{a}}_{n}$ as in (s12b).

Let us construct the matrix $\bm{\Phi}_{n}=[\phi(\bm{x}_{1}),\phi(\bm{x}_{2}),\dots,\phi(\bm{x}_{n})]$ of size $\text{dim}(\mathcal{F})\times n$. By the sparsification procedure, we know that every $i$th feature $\phi(\bm{x}_{i})$ is approximately linearly dependent on the features of the input locations in $\mathcal{D}_{i}$, i.e., $\phi(\bm{x}_{i})\simeq\sum^{D_{i}}_{j=1}[\bm{a}_{i}]_{j}\phi(\tilde{\bm{x}}_{j})$. Based on this, we can approximate $\bm{\Phi}_{n}\simeq\tilde{\bm{\Phi}}_{n}\bm{A}_{n}^{\top}$ where $\tilde{\bm{\Phi}}_{n}=[\phi(\tilde{\bm{x}}_{1}),\phi(\tilde{\bm{x}}_{2}),\dots,\phi(\tilde{\bm{x}}_{D_{n}})]$ is a matrix of size $\text{dim}(\mathcal{F})\times D_{n}$, and $\bm{A}_{n}$ is a matrix of size $n\times D_{n}$ for which each $i$th row is constructed by padding zeros to $\bm{a}_{i}$ until dimension $D_{n}$. On the other hand, we know that $\bm{K}_{n}=\bm{\Phi}_{n}^{\top}\bm{\Phi}_{n}$ by construction. As a result, we can approximate

Similarly,

By extension, plugging (s13) and (s14) into (3) yields the following approximation of the posterior moments