Machine Learning

1 readers

1 users here now

Community Rules:

Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@academy.garden

[D] Are neural processes still relevant? (alien.top)

submitted 11 months ago by deluded_soul@alien.top to c/machinelearning@academy.garden

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There was some hype around neural processes which seem like a marriage between non-parametric models like GPs and NN but have not heard anything about them recently.

Have they been superseded by something else? I have some spatio temporal data that I am looking to play with and wonder if this is a good way to dive into them but want to convince myself that they are still a somewhat relevant family of models to spend time on.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FinancialElephant@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

I don't know if neural processes were superceeded, but I have used them in work before successfully. I think there are other approaches to combining ideas from GPs with neural networks, not sure what the state of things is right now.

Last I checked there was a family of similar models so you should look there, particularly around the few shot / meta-learning problems that neural processes were created for.