Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Mikolaj J. Kasprzak
dblp:222/3124
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 1 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
1 paper |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 70% Learning theory · 30% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 › 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 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
laplace approximation · 0.9bayesian central limit theorem · 0.9
| 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. | 1 |
| 2023 | A Targeted Accuracy Diagnostic for Variational ApproximationsabstractVariational Inference (VI) is an attractive alternative to Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) due to its computational efficiency in the case of large datasets and/or complex models with high-dimensional parameters. However, evaluating the accuracy of variational approximations remains a challenge. Existing methods characterize the quality of the whole variational distribution, which is almost always poor in realistic applications, even if specific posterior functionals such as the component-wise means or variances are accurate. Hence, these diagnostics are of practical value only in limited circumstances. To address this issue, we propose the“TArgeted Diagnostic for Distribution Approximation Accuracy” (TADDAA), which uses many short parallel MCMC chains to obtain lower bounds on the error of each posterior functional of interest. We also develop a reliability check for TADDAA to determine when the lower bounds should not be trusted. Numerical experiments validate the practical utility and computational efficiency of our approach on a range of synthetic distributions and real-data examples, including sparse logistic regression and Bayesian neural network models. Mikolaj J. Kasprzak, Jonathan H. Huggins |
AISTATS | 2 |
| 2020 | Validated Variational Inference via Practical Posterior Error BoundsabstractVariational inference has become an increasingly attractive fast alternative to Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for approximate Bayesian inference. However, a major obstacle to the widespread use of variational methods is the lack of post-hoc accuracy measures that are both theoretically justified and computationally efficient. In this paper, we provide rigorous bounds on the error of posterior mean and uncertainty estimates that arise from full-distribution approximations, as in variational inference. Our bounds are widely applicable, as they require only that the approximating and exact posteriors have polynomial moments. Our bounds are also computationally efficient for variational inference because they require only standard values from variational objectives, straightforward analytic calculations, and simple Monte Carlo estimates. We show that our analysis naturally leads to a new and improved workflow for validated variational inference. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of our proposed workflow and error bounds on a robust regression problem and on a real-data example with a widely used multilevel hierarchical model. Jonathan H. Huggins, Mikolaj J. Kasprzak, Trevor Campbell, Tamara Broderick |
AISTATS | 2 |
| 2019 | Scalable Gaussian Process Inference with Finite-data Mean and Variance GuaranteesabstractGaussian processes (GPs) offer a flexible class of priors for nonparametric Bayesian regression, but popular GP posterior inference methods are typically prohibitively slow or lack desirable finite-data guarantees on quality. We develop a scalable approach to approximate GP regression, with finite-data guarantees on the accuracy of our pointwise posterior mean and variance estimates. Our main contribution is a novel objective for approximate inference in the nonparametric setting: the preconditioned Fisher (pF) divergence. We show that unlike the Kullback–Leibler divergence (used in variational inference), the pF divergence bounds bounds the 2-Wasserstein distance, which in turn provides tight bounds on the pointwise error of mean and variance estimates. We demonstrate that, for sparse GP likelihood approximations, we can minimize the pF divergence bounds efficiently. Our experiments show that optimizing the pF divergence bounds has the same computational requirements as variational sparse GPs while providing comparable empirical performance—in addition to our novel finite-data quality guarantees. Jonathan H. Huggins, Trevor Campbell, Mikolaj J. Kasprzak, Tamara Broderick |
AISTATS | 3 |