VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Joshua J. Bon
dblp:235/0241
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 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
1 paper |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 100% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computational science and engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, 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 | Bayesian Score Calibration for Approximate Models · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference
posterior calibration |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Bayesian Score Calibration for Approximate Models · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 |
Computational science and engineering › scientific machine learning
surrogate modeling |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Bayesian Score Calibration for Approximate Models · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
scoring rules · 1.7bayesian score calibration · 1.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Bayesian Score Calibration for Approximate ModelsabstractScientists continue to develop increasingly complex mechanistic models to reflect their knowledge more realistically. Statistical inference using these models can be challenging since the corresponding likelihood function is often intractable and model simulation may be computationally burdensome. Fortunately, in many of these situations it is possible to adopt a surrogate model or approximate likelihood function. It may be convenient to conduct Bayesian inference directly with a surrogate, but this can result in a posterior with poor uncertainty quantification. In this paper, we propose a new method for adjusting approximate posterior samples to reduce bias and improve posterior coverage properties. We do this by optimizing a transformation of the approximate posterior, the result of which maximizes a scoring rule. Our approach requires only a (fixed) small number of complex model simulations and is numerically stable. We develop supporting theory for our method and demonstrate beneficial corrections to approximate posteriors across several examples of increasing complexity. Joshua J. Bon, David J. Warne, David J. Nott, Christopher C. Drovandi |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 1 |