Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sebastian J. Vollmer
dblp:173/5140 · also Sebastian Josef Vollmer
· DBLP profile ↗
14ranked-venue papers
1as first author
10since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · conflict
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 12 · 1 first-author · 8 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 since 2021Security and privacy · 1 · 1 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 since 2021
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
7 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 61% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 17% Generative modeling · 9% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
2 papers |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% |
Topics — the 20 heaviest of 23, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
1.9 | 2 | 2026 | Reimagining Anomalies: What If Anomalies Were Normal? · AAAI 2026 X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › explainable AI
anomaly explanation |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Reimagining Anomalies: What If Anomalies Were Normal? · AAAI 2026 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
explainable AI |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
model multiplicity |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › cancer genomics
cancer driver gene identification |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking Cancer Gene Identification Through Graph Anomaly Analysis · AAAI 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › protein analysis › protein-protein interaction
protein-protein interaction network analysis |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking Cancer Gene Identification Through Graph Anomaly Analysis · AAAI 2025 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
energy-based model |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Energy Discrepancies: A Score-Independent Loss for Energy-Based Models · NeurIPS 2023 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology
survival analysis |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Avoiding C-hacking when evaluating survival distribution predictions with discrimination measures · Bioinform. 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods
markov chain monte carlo |
0.5 | 2 | 2016 | Exploration of the (Non-)Asymptotic Bias and Variance of Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016 Consistency and Fluctuations For Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods › markov chain monte carlo › langevin dynamics
stochastic gradient langevin dynamics |
0.5 | 2 | 2016 | Exploration of the (Non-)Asymptotic Bias and Variance of Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016 Consistency and Fluctuations For Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016 |
Machine learning › Time series and sequential data › anomaly detection
visual anomaly detection |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | Reimagining Anomalies: What If Anomalies Were Normal? · AAAI 2026 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
bayesian inference |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Distributed Bayesian Learning with Stochastic Natural Gradient Expectation Propagation and the Posterior Server · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2017 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › distributed statistical learning
distributed bayesian learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Distributed Bayesian Learning with Stochastic Natural Gradient Expectation Propagation and the Posterior Server · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2017 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
expectation propagation |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Distributed Bayesian Learning with Stochastic Natural Gradient Expectation Propagation and the Posterior Server · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2017 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
multi-objective optimization |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
score matching |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Energy Discrepancies: A Score-Independent Loss for Energy-Based Models · NeurIPS 2023 |
Distributed systems › operating system support › interprocess communication
asynchronous message passing |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Distributed Bayesian Learning with Stochastic Natural Gradient Expectation Propagation and the Posterior Server · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2017 |
Distributed systems
distributed machine learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Distributed Bayesian Learning with Stochastic Natural Gradient Expectation Propagation and the Posterior Server · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2017 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
stochastic gradient descent |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | Exploration of the (Non-)Asymptotic Bias and Variance of Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
cross-validation · 1.1concordance index · 1.1deep anomaly detection · 1.0counterfactual generation · 1.0spectral analysis · 0.9graph neural network · 0.9bayesian optimization · 0.9automated machine learning · 0.9SHAP values · 0.9score matching · 0.7energy discrepancy · 0.7contrastive divergence · 0.7stochastic natural gradient · 0.3monte carlo sampling · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Reimagining Anomalies: What If Anomalies Were Normal?abstractDeep learning-based methods have achieved a breakthrough in image anomaly detection, but their complexity introduces a considerable challenge to understanding why an instance is predicted to be anomalous. We introduce a novel explanation method that generates multiple alternative modifications for each anomaly, capturing diverse concepts of anomalousness. Each modification is trained to be perceived as normal by the anomaly detector. The method provides a semantic explanation of the mechanism that triggered the detector, allowing users to explore ``what-if scenarios.'' Qualitative and quantitative analyses across various image datasets demonstrate that applying this method to state-of-the-art detectors provides high-quality semantic explanations. Philipp Liznerski, Saurabh Varshneya, Ece Calikus, Puyu Wang, Alexander Bartscher, Sebastian J. Vollmer, Sophie Fellenz, Marius Kloft |
AAAI | 6 |
| 2025 | Rethinking Cancer Gene Identification Through Graph Anomaly AnalysisabstractGraph neural networks (GNNs) have shown promise in integrating protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks for identifying cancer genes in recent studies. However, due to the insufficient modeling of the biological information in PPI networks, more faithfully depiction of complex protein interaction patterns for cancer genes within the graph structure remains largely unexplored. This study takes a pioneering step toward bridging biological anomalies in protein interactions caused by cancer genes to statistical graph anomaly. We find a unique graph anomaly exhibited by cancer genes, namely weight heterogeneity, which manifests as significantly higher variance in edge weights of cancer gene nodes within the graph. Additionally, from the spectral perspective, we demonstrate that the weight heterogeneity could lead to the "flattening out" of spectral energy, with a concentration towards the extremes of the spectrum. Building on these insights, we propose the HIerarchical-Perspective Graph Neural Network (HIPGNN) that not only determines spectral energy distribution variations on the spectral perspective, but also perceives detailed protein interaction context on the spatial perspective. Extensive experiments are conducted on two reprocessed datasets STRINGdb and CPDB, and the experimental results demonstrate the superiority of HIPGNN. Yilong Zang, Lingfei Ren, Yue Li 0038, Zhikang Wang, David Antony Selby, Zheng Wang 0007, Sebastian J. Vollmer, Hongzhi Yin, Jiangning Song, Junhang Wu |
AAAI | 7 |
| 2025 | X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoMLabstractExplainable AI (XAI) and interpretable machine learning methods help to build trust in model predictions and derived insights, yet also present a perverse incentive for analysts to manipulate XAI metrics to support pre-specified conclusions. This paper introduces the concept of X-hacking, a form of p-hacking applied to XAI metrics such as Shap values. We show how easily an automated machine learning pipeline can be adapted to exploit model multiplicity at scale: searching a set of defensible’ models with similar predictive performance to find a desired explanation. We formulate the trade-off between explanation and accuracy as a multi-objective optimisation problem, and illustrate empirically on familiar real-world datasets that, on average, Bayesian optimisation accelerates X-hacking 3-fold for features susceptible to it, versus random sampling. We show the vulnerability of a dataset to X-hacking can be determined by information redundancy among features. Finally, we suggest possible methods for detection and prevention, and discuss ethical implications for the credibility and reproducibility of XAI. Sumantrak Mukherjee, Andrea Sipka, Eyke Hüllermeier, Sebastian J. Vollmer, Sergey Redyuk, David Antony Selby |
ICML | 5 |
| 2024 | Confidence-Aware Fault TreesabstractFault trees are one of the most well-known techniques for safety analysis, which allow both quantitative and qualitative statements about systems. In the classical approach, deterministic failure probabilities for the basic events are necessary in order to obtain quantified results. Classical hardware-related failures and events can be obtained through testing, whereas software-dependent failures are harder to measure and identify, but are still possible to quantify when the implementation is given. In contrast, Machine Learning models lack this information, as their behaviour is not explicitly specified. Up to today, there are very few methods available to judge the worst-case performance of these models and predict their general performance. Alexander Günther, Sebastian J. Vollmer, Peter Liggesmeyer |
ARES | 2 |
| 2023 | Energy-Based Models for Functional Data using Path Measure TiltingabstractEnergy-Based Models (EBMs) have proven to be a highly effective approach for modelling densities on finite-dimensional spaces. Their ability to incorporate domain-specific choices and constraints into the structure of the model through composition make EBMs an appealing candidate for applications in physics, biology and computer vision and various other fields. Recently, Energy-Based Processes (EBP) for modelling stochastic processes was proposed for unconditional exchangeable data (e.g., point clouds). In this work, we present a novel subclass of EBPs, called $\mathcal{F}$-EBM for conditional exchangeable data, which is able to learn distributions of functions (such as curves or surfaces) from functional samples evaluated at finitely many points. Two unique challenges arise in the functional context. Firstly, training data is often not evaluated along a fixed set of points. Secondly, steps must be taken to control the behaviour of the model between evaluation points, to mitigate overfitting. The proposed model is an energy based model on function space that is decomposed spectrally, where a Gaussian Process path measure is used to reweight the distribution to capture smoothness properties of the underlying process being modelled. The resulting model has the ability to utilize irregularly sampled training data and can output predictions at any resolution, providing an effective approach to up-scaling functional data. We demonstrate the efficacy of our proposed approach for modelling a range of datasets, including data collected from Standard and Poor’s 500 (S$&$P) and UK National grid. Jen Ning Lim, Sebastian J. Vollmer, Lorenz Wolf, Andrew B. Duncan |
AISTATS | 2 |
| 2023 | Energy Discrepancies: A Score-Independent Loss for Energy-Based ModelsabstractEnergy-based models are a simple yet powerful class of probabilistic models, but their widespread adoption has been limited by the computational burden of training them. We propose a novel loss function called Energy Discrepancy (ED) which does not rely on the computation of scores or expensive Markov chain Monte Carlo. We show that energy discrepancy approaches the explicit score matching and negative log-likelihood loss under different limits, effectively interpolating between both. Consequently, minimum energy discrepancy estimation overcomes the problem of nearsightedness encountered in score-based estimation methods, while also enjoying theoretical guarantees. Through numerical experiments, we demonstrate that ED learns low-dimensional data distributions faster and more accurately than explicit score matching or contrastive divergence. For high-dimensional image data, we describe how the manifold hypothesis puts limitations on our approach and demonstrate the effectiveness of energy discrepancy by training the energy-based model as a prior of a variational decoder model. Tobias Schröder, Zijing Ou, Jen Lim, Yingzhen Li, Sebastian J. Vollmer, Andrew B. Duncan |
NeurIPS | 5 |
| 2022 | Mitigating statistical bias within differentially private synthetic dataabstractIncreasing interest in privacy-preserving machine learning has led to new and evolved approaches for generating private synthetic data from undisclosed real data. However, mechanisms of privacy preservation can significantly reduce the utility of synthetic data, which in turn impacts downstream tasks such as learning predictive models or inference. We propose several re-weighting strategies using privatised likelihood ratios that not only mitigate statistical bias of downstream estimators but also have general applicability to differentially private generative models. Through large-scale empirical evaluation, we show that private importance weighting provides simple and effective privacy-compliant augmentation for general applications of synthetic data. Sahra Ghalebikesabi, Harry Wilde, Jack Jewson, Arnaud Doucet, Sebastian J. Vollmer, Christopher C. Holmes |
UAI | 5 |
| 2022 | Avoiding C-hacking when evaluating survival distribution predictions with discrimination measuresabstractMOTIVATION: In this article, we consider how to evaluate survival distribution predictions with measures of discrimination. This is non-trivial as discrimination measures are the most commonly used in survival analysis and yet there is no clear method to derive a risk prediction from a distribution prediction. We survey methods proposed in literature and software and consider their respective advantages and disadvantages. RESULTS: Whilst distributions are frequently evaluated by discrimination measures, we find that the method for doing so is rarely described in the literature and often leads to unfair comparisons or 'C-hacking'. We demonstrate by example how simple it can be to manipulate results and use this to argue for better reporting guidelines and transparency in the literature. We recommend that machine learning survival analysis software implements clear transformations between distribution and risk predictions in order to allow more transparent and accessible model evaluation. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The code used in the final experiment is available at https://github.com/RaphaelS1/distribution_discrimination. Raphael Sonabend, Andreas Bender 0001, Sebastian J. Vollmer |
Bioinform. | 3 |
| 2021 | Model updating after interventions paradoxically introduces biasabstractMachine learning is increasingly being used to generate prediction models for use in a number of real-world settings, from credit risk assessment to clinical decision support. Recent discussions have highlighted potential problems in the updating of a predictive score for a binary outcome when an existing predictive score forms part of the standard workflow, driving interventions. In this setting, the existing score induces an additional causative pathway which leads to miscalibration when the original score is replaced. We propose a general causal framework to describe and address this problem, and demonstrate an equivalent formulation as a partially observed Markov decision process. We use this model to demonstrate the impact of such ‘naive updating’ when performed repeatedly. Namely, we show that successive predictive scores may converge to a point where they predict their own effect, or may eventually tend toward a stable oscillation between two values, and we argue that neither outcome is desirable. Furthermore, we demonstrate that even if model-fitting procedures improve, actual performance may worsen. We complement these findings with a discussion of several potential routes to overcome these issues. James Liley, Samuel R. Emerson, Bilal A. Mateen, Catalina A. Vallejos, Louis J. M. Aslett, Sebastian J. Vollmer |
AISTATS | 6 |
| 2021 | Foundations of Bayesian Learning from Synthetic DataabstractThere is significant growth and interest in the use of synthetic data as an enabler for machine learning in environments where the release of real data is restricted due to privacy or availability constraints. Despite a large number of methods for synthetic data generation, there are comparatively few results on the statistical properties of models learnt on synthetic data, and fewer still for situations where a researcher wishes to augment real data with another party’s synthesised data. We use a Bayesian paradigm to characterise the updating of model parameters when learning in these settings, demonstrating that caution should be taken when applying conventional learning algorithms without appropriate consideration of the synthetic data generating process and learning task at hand. Recent results from general Bayesian updating support a novel and robust approach to Bayesian synthetic-learning founded on decision theory that outperforms standard approaches across repeated experiments on supervised learning and inference problems. Harrison Wilde, Jack Jewson, Sebastian J. Vollmer, Christopher C. Holmes |
AISTATS | 3 |
| 2017 | Relativistic Monte CarloabstractHamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) is a popular Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm that generates proposals for a Metropolis-Hastings algorithm by simulating the dynamics of a Hamiltonian system. However, HMC is sensitive to large time discretizations and performs poorly if there is a mismatch between the spatial geometry of the target distribution and the scales of the momentum distribution. In particular the mass matrix of HMC is hard to tune well. In order to alleviate these problems we propose relativistic Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, a version of HMC based on relativistic dynamics that introduces a maximum velocity on particles. We also derive stochastic gradient versions of the algorithm and show that the resulting algorithms bear interesting relationships to gradient clipping, RMSprop, Adagrad and Adam, popular optimisation methods in deep learning. Based on this, we develop relativistic stochastic gradient descent by taking the zero-temperature limit of relativistic stochastic gradient Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. In experiments we show that the relativistic algorithms perform better than classical Newtonian variants and Adam. Valerio Perrone, Leonard Hasenclever, Yee Whye Teh, Sebastian J. Vollmer |
AISTATS | 5 |
| 2017 | Distributed Bayesian Learning with Stochastic Natural Gradient Expectation Propagation and the Posterior ServerabstractThis paper makes two contributions to Bayesian machine learning algorithms. Firstly, we propose stochastic natural gradient expectation propagation (SNEP), a novel alternative to expectation propagation (EP), a popular variational inference algorithm. SNEP is a black box variational algorithm, in that it does not require any simplifying assumptions on the distribution of interest, beyond the existence of some Monte Carlo sampler for estimating the moments of the EP tilted distributions. Further, as opposed to EP which has no guarantee of convergence, SNEP can be shown to be convergent, even when using Monte Carlo moment estimates. Secondly, we propose a novel architecture for distributed Bayesian learning which we call the posterior server. The posterior server allows scalable and robust Bayesian learning in cases where a data set is stored in a distributed manner across a cluster, with each compute node containing a disjoint subset of data. An independent Monte Carlo sampler is run on each compute node, with direct access only to the local data subset, but which targets an approximation to the global posterior distribution given all data across the whole cluster. This is achieved by using a distributed asynchronous implementation of SNEP to pass messages across the cluster. We demonstrate SNEP and the posterior server on distributed Bayesian learning of logistic regression and neural networks. Leonard Hasenclever, Stefan Webb, Thibaut Liénart, Sebastian J. Vollmer, Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Charles Blundell, Yee Whye Teh |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 4 |
| 2016 | Consistency and Fluctuations For Stochastic Gradient Langevin DynamicsabstractApplying standard Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms to large data sets is computationally expensive. Both the calculation of the acceptance probability and the creation of informed proposals usually require an iteration through the whole data set. The recently proposed stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics (SGLD) method circumvents this problem by generating proposals which are only based on a subset of the data, by skipping the accept-reject step and by using decreasing step-sizes sequence $(\delta_m)_{m \geq 0}$. We provide in this article a rigorous mathematical framework for analysing this algorithm. We prove that, under verifiable assumptions, the algorithm is consistent, satisfies a central limit theorem (CLT) and its asymptotic bias-variance decomposition can be characterized by an explicit functional of the step-sizes sequence $(\delta_m)_{m \geq 0}$. We leverage this analysis to give practical recommendations for the notoriously difficult tuning of this algorithm: it is asymptotically optimal to use a step-size sequence of the type $\delta_m \asymp m^{-1/3}$, leading to an algorithm whose mean squared error (MSE) decreases at rate $\mathcal{O}(m^{-1/3})$. Yee Whye Teh, Alexandre H. Thiery, Sebastian J. Vollmer |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 3 |
| 2016 | Exploration of the (Non-)Asymptotic Bias and Variance of Stochastic Gradient Langevin DynamicsabstractApplying standard Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms to large data sets is computationally infeasible. The recently proposed stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics (SGLD) method circumvents this problem in three ways: it generates proposed moves using only a subset of the data, it skips the Metropolis- Hastings accept-reject step, and it uses sequences of decreasing step sizes. In Teh et al. (2014), we provided the mathematical foundations for the decreasing step size SGLD, including consistency and a central limit theorem. However, in practice the SGLD is run for a relatively small number of iterations, and its step size is not decreased to zero. The present article investigates the behaviour of the SGLD with fixed step size. In particular we characterise the asymptotic bias explicitly, along with its dependence on the step size and the variance of the stochastic gradient. On that basis a modified SGLD which removes the asymptotic bias due to the variance of the stochastic gradients up to first order in the step size is derived. Moreover, we are able to obtain bounds on the finite-time bias, variance and mean squared error (MSE). The theory is illustrated with a Gaussian toy model for which the bias and the MSE for the estimation of moments can be obtained explicitly. For this toy model we study the gain of the SGLD over the standard Euler method in the limit of large data sets. Sebastian J. Vollmer, Konstantinos C. Zygalakis, Yee Whye Teh |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 1 |