In variety testing, multi-environment trials (MET) are essential for evaluating the genotypic performance of crop plants. A persistent challenge in the statistical analysis of MET data is the estimation of variance components, which are often still inaccurately estimated or shrunk to exactly zero when using residual (restricted) maximum likelihood (REML) approaches. At the same time, institutions conducting MET typically possess extensive historical data that can, in principle, be leveraged to improve variance component estimation. However, these data are rarely incorporated sufficiently. The purpose of this paper is to address this gap by proposing a Bayesian framework that systematically integrates historical information to stabilize variance component estimation and better quantify uncertainty. Our Bayesian linear mixed model (BLMM) reformulation uses priors and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods to maintain the variance components as positive, yielding more realistic distributional estimates. Furthermore, our model incorporates historical prior information by managing MET data in successive historical data windows. Variance component prior and posterior distributions are shown to be conjugate and belong to the inverse gamma and inverse Wishart families. While Bayesian methodology is increasingly being used for analyzing MET data, to the best of our knowledge, this study comprises one of the first serious attempts to objectively inform priors in the context of MET data. This refers to the proposed Bayesian updating approach. To demonstrate the framework, we consider an application where posterior variance component samples are plugged into an A-optimality experimental design criterion to determine the average optimal allocations of trials to agro-ecological zones in a sub-divided target population of environments (TPE).

We propose a machine-learning algorithm for Bayesian inverse problems in the function-space regime based on one-step generative transport. Building on the Mean Flows, we learn a fully conditional amortized sampler with a neural-operator backbone that maps a reference Gaussian noise to approximate posterior samples. We show that while white-noise references may be admissible at fixed discretization, they become incompatible with the function-space limit, leading to instability in inference for Bayesian problems arising from PDEs. To address this issue, we adopt a prior-aligned anisotropic Gaussian reference distribution and establish the Lipschitz regularity of the resulting transport. Our method is not distilled from MCMC: training relies only on prior samples and simulated partial and noisy observations. Once trained, it generates a $64\times64$ posterior sample in $\sim 10^{-3}$s, avoiding the repeated PDE solves of MCMC while matching key posterior summaries.

Mobile data technologies use ``actigraphs'' to furnish information on health variables as a function of a subject's movement. The advent of wearable devices and related technologies has propelled the creation of health databases consisting of human movement data to conduct research on mobility patterns and health outcomes. Statistical methods for analyzing high-resolution actigraph data depend on the specific inferential context, but the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) frameworks require that the methods be congruent to transfer learning and amortization. This article devises amortized Bayesian inference for actigraph time sheets. We pursue a Bayesian approach to ensure full propagation of uncertainty and its quantification using a hierarchical dynamic linear model. We build our analysis around actigraph data from the Physical Activity through Sustainable Transport Approaches in Los Angeles (PASTA-LA) study conducted by the Fielding School of Public Health in the University of California, Los Angeles. Apart from achieving probabilistic imputation of actigraph time sheets, we are also able to statistically learn about the time-varying impact of explanatory variables on the magnitude of acceleration (MAG) for a cohort of subjects.

In general, this has a cubic cost in dataset size and is sensitive to conditioning.

This assumption is problematic, particularly in complex data environments.