Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Kevin Roth
dblp:200/8656
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
3as first author
2since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 3 first-author · 2 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 |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 56% Trustworthy machine learning · 23% Deep learning architectures and training · 12% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Data integration and cleaning · 100% |
Topics — the 20 heaviest of 20, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
bayesian neural networks |
1.4 | 3 | 2021 | Disentangling the Roles of Curation, Data-Augmentation and the Prior in the Cold Posterior Effect · NeurIPS 2021 Precise characterization of the prior predictive distribution of deep ReLU networks · NeurIPS 2021 The k-tied Normal Distribution: A Compact Parameterization of Gaussian Mean Field Posteriors in Bayesian Neural Networks · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models
bayesian deep learning |
0.9 | 2 | 2021 | Disentangling the Roles of Curation, Data-Augmentation and the Prior in the Cold Posterior Effect · NeurIPS 2021 How Good is the Bayes Posterior in Deep Neural Networks Really? · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
regularization |
0.7 | 2 | 2020 | Adversarial Training is a Form of Data-dependent Operator Norm Regularization · NeurIPS 2020 Stabilizing Training of Generative Adversarial Networks through Regularization · NIPS 2017 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.6 | 2 | 2021 | Disentangling the Roles of Curation, Data-Augmentation and the Prior in the Cold Posterior Effect · NeurIPS 2021 How Good is the Bayes Posterior in Deep Neural Networks Really? · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › approximate bayesian inference
cold posteriors |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Disentangling the Roles of Curation, Data-Augmentation and the Prior in the Cold Posterior Effect · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › prior modeling
gaussian priors |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Precise characterization of the prior predictive distribution of deep ReLU networks · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
weight initialization |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Precise characterization of the prior predictive distribution of deep ReLU networks · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › adversarial robustness
adversarial training |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Adversarial Training is a Form of Data-dependent Operator Norm Regularization · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference
approximate bayesian inference |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | The k-tied Normal Distribution: A Compact Parameterization of Gaussian Mean Field Posteriors in Bayesian Neural Networks · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference
approximate inference |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | How Good is the Bayes Posterior in Deep Neural Networks Really? · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods
markov chain monte carlo |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | How Good is the Bayes Posterior in Deep Neural Networks Really? · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference
posterior inference |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | How Good is the Bayes Posterior in Deep Neural Networks Really? · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Adversarial Training is a Form of Data-dependent Operator Norm Regularization · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › statistical learning theory › regularization theory
spectral norm regularization |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Adversarial Training is a Form of Data-dependent Operator Norm Regularization · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
variational inference |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | The k-tied Normal Distribution: A Compact Parameterization of Gaussian Mean Field Posteriors in Bayesian Neural Networks · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › adversarial machine learning › adversarial defense
adversarial example detection |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | The Odds are Odd: A Statistical Test for Detecting Adversarial Examples · ICML 2019 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial robustness |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | The Odds are Odd: A Statistical Test for Detecting Adversarial Examples · ICML 2019 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
generative adversarial network |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Stabilizing Training of Generative Adversarial Networks through Regularization · NIPS 2017 |
Data integration and cleaning
data curation |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Disentangling the Roles of Curation, Data-Augmentation and the Prior in the Cold Posterior Effect · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression
neural network compression |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | The k-tied Normal Distribution: A Compact Parameterization of Gaussian Mean Field Posteriors in Bayesian Neural Networks · ICML 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
data augmentation · 1.0bayesian inference · 1.0meijer g-function · 0.5infinite-width analysis · 0.5stochastic gradient descent · 0.4projected gradient ascent · 0.4low-rank factorization · 0.4gaussian mean-field variational inference · 0.4cold posterior · 0.4log-odds calibration · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Precise characterization of the prior predictive distribution of deep ReLU networksabstractRecent works on Bayesian neural networks (BNNs) have highlighted the need to better understand the implications of using Gaussian priors in combination with the compositional structure of the network architecture. Similar in spirit to the kind of analysis that has been developed to devise better initialization schemes for neural networks (cf. He- or Xavier initialization), we derive a precise characterization of the prior predictive distribution of finite-width ReLU networks with Gaussian weights.While theoretical results have been obtained for their heavy-tailedness,the full characterization of the prior predictive distribution (i.e. its density, CDF and moments), remained unknown prior to this work. Our analysis, based on the Meijer-G function, allows us to quantify the influence of architectural choices such as the width or depth of the network on the resulting shape of the prior predictive distribution. We also formally connect our results to previous work in the infinite width setting, demonstrating that the moments of the distribution converge to those of a normal log-normal mixture in the infinite depth limit. Finally, our results provide valuable guidance on prior design: for instance, controlling the predictive variance with depth- and width-informed priors on the weights of the network. Lorenzo Noci, Gregor Bachmann, Kevin Roth, Sebastian Nowozin, Thomas Hofmann 0001 |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2021 | Disentangling the Roles of Curation, Data-Augmentation and the Prior in the Cold Posterior EffectabstractThe “cold posterior effect” (CPE) in Bayesian deep learning describes the disturbing observation that the predictive performance of Bayesian neural networks can be significantly improved if the Bayes posterior is artificially sharpened using a temperature parameter T <1. The CPE is problematic in theory and practice and since the effect was identified many researchers have proposed hypotheses to explain the phenomenon. However, despite this intensive research effort the effect remains poorly understood. In this work we provide novel and nuanced evidence relevant to existing explanations for the cold posterior effect, disentangling three hypotheses: 1. The dataset curation hypothesis of Aitchison (2020): we show empirically that the CPE does not arise in a real curated data set but can be produced in a controlled experiment with varying curation strength. 2. The data augmentation hypothesis of Izmailov et al. (2021) and Fortuin et al. (2021): we show empirically that data augmentation is sufficient but not necessary for the CPE to be present. 3. The bad prior hypothesis of Wenzel et al. (2020): we use a simple experiment evaluating the relative importance of the prior and the likelihood, strongly linking the CPE to the prior. Our results demonstrate how the CPE can arise in isolation from synthetic curation, data augmentation, and bad priors. Cold posteriors observed “in the wild” are therefore unlikely to arise from a single simple cause; as a result, we do not expect a simple “fix” for cold posteriors. Lorenzo Noci, Kevin Roth, Gregor Bachmann, Sebastian Nowozin, Thomas Hofmann 0001 |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2020 | The k-tied Normal Distribution: A Compact Parameterization of Gaussian Mean Field Posteriors in Bayesian Neural NetworksabstractVariational Bayesian Inference is a popular methodology for approximating posterior distributions over Bayesian neural network weights. Recent work developing this class of methods has explored ever richer parameterizations of the approximate posterior in the hope of improving performance. In contrast, here we share a curious experimental finding that suggests instead restricting the variational distribution to a more compact parameterization. For a variety of deep Bayesian neural networks trained using Gaussian mean-field variational inference, we find that the posterior standard deviations consistently exhibit strong low-rank structure after convergence. This means that by decomposing these variational parameters into a low-rank factorization, we can make our variational approximation more compact without decreasing the models’ performance. Furthermore, we find that such factorized parameterizations improve the signal-to-noise ratio of stochastic gradient estimates of the variational lower bound, resulting in faster convergence. Jakub Swiatkowski, Kevin Roth, Bastiaan S. Veeling, Joshua V. Dillon, Jasper Snoek, Stephan Mandt, Tim Salimans, Rodolphe Jenatton, Sebastian Nowozin |
ICML | 2 |
| 2020 | How Good is the Bayes Posterior in Deep Neural Networks Really?abstractDuring the past five years the Bayesian deep learning community has developed increasingly accurate and efficient approximate inference procedures that allow for Bayesian inference in deep neural networks. However, despite this algorithmic progress and the promise of improved uncertainty quantification and sample efficiency there are—as of early 2020—no publicized deployments of Bayesian neural networks in industrial practice. In this work we cast doubt on the current understanding of Bayes posteriors in popular deep neural networks: we demonstrate through careful MCMC sampling that the posterior predictive induced by the Bayes posterior yields systematically worse predictions when compared to simpler methods including point estimates obtained from SGD. Furthermore, we demonstrate that predictive performance is improved significantly through the use of a “cold posterior” that overcounts evidence. Such cold posteriors sharply deviate from the Bayesian paradigm but are commonly used as heuristic in Bayesian deep learning papers. We put forward several hypotheses that could explain cold posteriors and evaluate the hypotheses through experiments. Our work questions the goal of accurate posterior approximations in Bayesian deep learning: If the true Bayes posterior is poor, what is the use of more accurate approximations? Instead, we argue that it is timely to focus on understanding the origin of cold posteriors. Florian Wenzel, Kevin Roth, Bastiaan S. Veeling, Jakub Swiatkowski, Stephan Mandt, Jasper Snoek, Tim Salimans, Rodolphe Jenatton, Sebastian Nowozin |
ICML | 2 |
| 2020 | Adversarial Training is a Form of Data-dependent Operator Norm RegularizationabstractWe establish a theoretical link between adversarial training and operator norm regularization for deep neural networks. Specifically, we prove that $l_p$-norm constrained projected gradient ascent based adversarial training with an $l_q$-norm loss on the logits of clean and perturbed inputs is equivalent to data-dependent (p, q) operator norm regularization. This fundamental connection confirms the long-standing argument that a network’s sensitivity to adversarial examples is tied to its spectral properties and hints at novel ways to robustify and defend against adversarial attacks. We provide extensive empirical evidence on state-of-the-art network architectures to support our theoretical results. Kevin Roth, Yannic Kilcher, Thomas Hofmann 0001 |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2019 | The Odds are Odd: A Statistical Test for Detecting Adversarial ExamplesabstractWe investigate conditions under which test statistics exist that can reliably detect examples, which have been adversarially manipulated in a white-box attack. These statistics can be easily computed and calibrated by randomly corrupting inputs. They exploit certain anomalies that adversarial attacks introduce, in particular if they follow the paradigm of choosing perturbations optimally under p-norm constraints. Access to the log-odds is the only requirement to defend models. We justify our approach empirically, but also provide conditions under which detectability via the suggested test statistics is guaranteed to be effective. In our experiments, we show that it is even possible to correct test time predictions for adversarial attacks with high accuracy. Kevin Roth, Yannic Kilcher, Thomas Hofmann 0001 |
ICML | 1 |
| 2017 | Stabilizing Training of Generative Adversarial Networks through RegularizationabstractDeep generative models based on Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) have demonstrated impressive sample quality but in order to work they require a careful choice of architecture, parameter initialization, and selection of hyper-parameters. This fragility is in part due to a dimensional mismatch or non-overlapping support between the model distribution and the data distribution, causing their density ratio and the associated f -divergence to be undefined. We overcome this fundamental limitation and propose a new regularization approach with low computational cost that yields a stable GAN training procedure. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this regularizer accross several architectures trained on common benchmark image generation tasks. Our regularization turns GAN models into reliable building blocks for deep learning. Kevin Roth, Aurélien Lucchi, Sebastian Nowozin, Thomas Hofmann 0001 |
NIPS | 1 |