VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ryan Giordano
dblp:153/2029 · also Ryan James Giordano
· DBLP profile ↗
8ranked-venue papers
4as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0002-5686-9210ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 4 first-author · 3 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 2
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
5 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 83% Learning theory · 13% Trustworthy machine learning · 3% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computational science and engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
variational inference |
1.3 | 3 | 2024 | Black Box Variational Inference with a Deterministic Objective: Faster, More Accurate, and Even More Black Box · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024 Covariances, Robustness, and Variational Bayes · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2018 Linear Response Methods for Accurate Covariance Estimates from Mean Field Variational Bayes · NIPS 2015 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › parameter estimation › covariance estimation
posterior covariance estimation |
1.1 | 2 | 2024 | Black Box Variational Inference with a Deterministic Objective: Faster, More Accurate, and Even More Black Box · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024 Covariances, Robustness, and Variational Bayes · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2018 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference
approximate bayesian inference |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | How good is your Laplace approximation of the Bayesian posterior? Finite-sample computable error bounds for a variety of useful divergences · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › statistical learning theory › finite-sample analysis
finite-sample bounds |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | How good is your Laplace approximation of the Bayesian posterior? Finite-sample computable error bounds for a variety of useful divergences · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › approximate bayesian inference
laplace approximation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | How good is your Laplace approximation of the Bayesian posterior? Finite-sample computable error bounds for a variety of useful divergences · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference
mean-field approximation |
0.5 | 2 | 2018 | Covariances, Robustness, and Variational Bayes · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2018 Linear Response Methods for Accurate Covariance Estimates from Mean Field Variational Bayes · NIPS 2015 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › regression › generalized linear model
logistic regression |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | How good is your Laplace approximation of the Bayesian posterior? Finite-sample computable error bounds for a variety of useful divergences · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Linear Response Methods for Accurate Covariance Estimates from Mean Field Variational Bayes · NIPS 2015 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes
gaussian process |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Gaussian processes at the Helm(holtz): A more fluid model for ocean currents · ICML 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
helmholtz decomposition · 1.3gaussian process · 1.3laplace approximation · 1.2bayesian central limit theorem · 0.9second-order optimization · 0.8sample average approximation · 0.8linear response · 0.8mean field variational bayes · 0.5MCMC · 0.3linear response methods · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | How good is your Laplace approximation of the Bayesian posterior? Finite-sample computable error bounds for a variety of useful divergencesabstractThe Laplace approximation is a popular method for constructing a Gaussian approximation to the Bayesian posterior and thereby approximating the posterior mean and variance. But approximation quality is a concern. One might consider using rate-of-convergence bounds from certain versions of the Bayesian Central Limit Theorem (BCLT) to provide quality guarantees. But existing bounds require assumptions that are unrealistic even for relatively simple real-life Bayesian analyses; more specifically, existing bounds either (1) require knowing the true data-generating parameter, (2) are asymptotic in the number of samples, (3) do not control the Bayesian posterior mean, or (4) require strongly log concave models to compute. In this work, we provide the first computable bounds on quality that simultaneously (1) do not require knowing the true parameter, (2) apply to finite samples, (3) control posterior means and variances, and (4) apply generally to models that satisfy the conditions of the asymptotic BCLT. Moreover, we substantially improve the dimension dependence of existing bounds; in fact, we achieve the lowest-order dimension dependence possible in the general case. We compute exact constants in our bounds for a variety of standard models, including logistic regression, and numerically demonstrate their utility. We provide a framework for analysis of more complex models. Mikolaj J. Kasprzak, Ryan Giordano, Tamara Broderick |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 2 |
| 2024 | Black Box Variational Inference with a Deterministic Objective: Faster, More Accurate, and Even More Black BoxabstractAutomatic differentiation variational inference (ADVI) offers fast and easy-to-use posterior approximation in multiple modern probabilistic programming languages. However, its stochastic optimizer lacks clear convergence criteria and requires tuning parameters. Moreover, ADVI inherits the poor posterior uncertainty estimates of mean-field variational Bayes (MFVB). We introduce "deterministic ADVI" (DADVI) to address these issues. DADVI replaces the intractable MFVB objective with a fixed Monte Carlo approximation, a technique known in the stochastic optimization literature as the "sample average approximation" (SAA). By optimizing an approximate but deterministic objective, DADVI can use off-the-shelf second-order optimization, and, unlike standard mean-field ADVI, is amenable to more accurate posterior covariances via linear response (LR). In contrast to existing worst-case theory, we show that, on certain classes of common statistical problems, DADVI and the SAA can perform well with relatively few samples even in very high dimensions, though we also show that such favorable results cannot extend to variational approximations that are too expressive relative to mean-field ADVI. We show on a variety of real-world problems that DADVI reliably finds good solutions with default settings (unlike ADVI) and, together with LR covariances, is typically faster and more accurate than standard ADVI. Ryan Giordano, Martin Ingram, Tamara Broderick |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 1 |
| 2023 | Gaussian processes at the Helm(holtz): A more fluid model for ocean currentsabstractOceanographers are interested in predicting ocean currents and identifying divergences in a current vector field based on sparse observations of buoy velocities. Since we expect current dynamics to be smooth but highly non-linear, Gaussian processes (GPs) offer an attractive model. But we show that applying a GP with a standard stationary kernel directly to buoy data can struggle at both current prediction and divergence identification – due to some physically unrealistic prior assumptions. To better reflect known physical properties of currents, we propose to instead put a standard stationary kernel on the divergence and curl-free components of a vector field obtained through a Helmholtz decomposition. We show that, because this decomposition relates to the original vector field just via mixed partial derivatives, we can still perform inference given the original data with only a small constant multiple of additional computational expense. We illustrate the benefits of our method on synthetic and real oceans data. Renato Berlinghieri, Brian L. Trippe, David R. Burt, Ryan Giordano, Kaushik Srinivasan, Tamay M. Özgökmen, Junfei Xia, Tamara Broderick |
ICML | 4 |
| 2019 | A Swiss Army Infinitesimal JackknifeabstractThe error or variability of machine learning algorithms is often assessed by repeatedly refitting a model with different weighted versions of the observed data. The ubiquitous tools of cross-validation (CV) and the bootstrap are examples of this technique. These methods are powerful in large part due to their model agnosticism but can be slow to run on modern, large data sets due to the need to repeatedly re-fit the model. In this work, we use a linear approximation to the dependence of the fitting procedure on the weights, producing results that can be faster than repeated re-fitting by an order of magnitude. This linear approximation is sometimes known as the "infinitesimal jackknife" in the statistics literature, where it is mostly used as a theoretical tool to prove asymptotic results. We provide explicit finite-sample error bounds for the infinitesimal jackknife in terms of a small number of simple, verifiable assumptions. Our results apply whether the weights and data are stochastic or deterministic, and so can be used as a tool for proving the accuracy of the infinitesimal jackknife on a wide variety of problems. As a corollary, we state mild regularity conditions under which our approximation consistently estimates true leave k-out cross-validation for any fixed k. These theoretical results, together with modern automatic differentiation software, support the application of the infinitesimal jackknife to a wide variety of practical problems in machine learning, providing a "Swiss Army infinitesimal jackknife." We demonstrate the accuracy of our methods on a range of simulated and real datasets. Ryan Giordano, William T. Stephenson, Runjing Liu, Michael I. Jordan, Tamara Broderick |
AISTATS | 1 |
| 2019 | Cataloging the visible universe through Bayesian inference in Julia at petascale
Jeffrey Regier, Keno Fischer, Kiran Pamnany, Andreas Noack 0001, Jarrett Revels, Maximilian Lam, Steve Howard, Ryan Giordano, David Schlegel, Jon D. McAuliffe, Rollin C. Thomas, Prabhat |
J. Parallel Distributed Comput. | 8 |
| 2018 | Cataloging the Visible Universe Through Bayesian Inference at PetascaleabstractAstronomical catalogs derived from wide-field imaging surveys are an important tool for understanding the Universe. We construct an astronomical catalog from 55 TB of imaging data using Celeste, a Bayesian variational inference code written entirely in the high-productivity programming language Julia. Using over 1.3 million threads on 650,000 Intel Xeon Phi cores of the Cori Phase II supercomputer, Celeste achieves a peak rate of 1.54 DP PFLOP/s. Celeste is able to jointly optimize parameters for 188M stars and galaxies, loading and processing 178 TB across 8192 nodes in 14.6 minutes. To achieve this, Celeste exploits parallelism at multiple levels (cluster, node, and thread) and accelerates I/O through Cori's Burst Buffer. Julia's native performance enables Celeste to employ high-level constructs without resorting to hand-written or generated low-level code (C/C++/Fortran), and yet achieve petascale performance. Jeffrey Regier, Kiran Pamnany, Keno Fischer, Andreas Noack 0001, Maximilian Lam, Jarrett Revels, Steve Howard, Ryan Giordano, David Schlegel, Jon D. McAuliffe, Rollin C. Thomas, Prabhat |
IPDPS | 8 |
| 2018 | Covariances, Robustness, and Variational BayesabstractMean-field Variational Bayes (MFVB) is an approximate Bayesian posterior inference technique that is increasingly popular due to its fast runtimes on large-scale data sets. However, even when MFVB provides accurate posterior means for certain parameters, it often mis-estimates variances and covariances. Furthermore, prior robustness measures have remained undeveloped for MFVB. By deriving a simple formula for the effect of infinitesimal model perturbations on MFVB posterior means, we provide both improved covariance estimates and local robustness measures for MFVB, thus greatly expanding the practical usefulness of MFVB posterior approximations. The estimates for MFVB posterior covariances rely on a result from the classical Bayesian robustness literature that relates derivatives of posterior expectations to posterior covariances and includes the Laplace approximation as a special case. Our key condition is that the MFVB approximation provides good estimates of a select subset of posterior means---an assumption that has been shown to hold in many practical settings. In our experiments, we demonstrate that our methods are simple, general, and fast, providing accurate posterior uncertainty estimates and robustness measures with runtimes that can be an order of magnitude faster than MCMC. Ryan Giordano, Tamara Broderick, Michael I. Jordan |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 1 |
| 2015 | Linear Response Methods for Accurate Covariance Estimates from Mean Field Variational BayesabstractMean field variational Bayes (MFVB) is a popular posterior approximation method due to its fast runtime on large-scale data sets. However, a well known failing of MFVB is that it underestimates the uncertainty of model variables (sometimes severely) and provides no information about model variable covariance. We generalize linear response methods from statistical physics to deliver accurate uncertainty estimates for model variables---both for individual variables and coherently across variables. We call our method linear response variational Bayes (LRVB). When the MFVB posterior approximation is in the exponential family, LRVB has a simple, analytic form, even for non-conjugate models. Indeed, we make no assumptions about the form of the true posterior. We demonstrate the accuracy and scalability of our method on a range of models for both simulated and real data. Ryan Giordano, Tamara Broderick, Michael I. Jordan |
NIPS | 1 |