Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Runa Eschenhagen
dblp:242/9235
· DBLP profile ↗
10ranked-venue papers
2as first author
8since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 10 · 2 first-author · 8 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
10 papers |
Optimization for machine learning · 47% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 26% Trustworthy machine learning · 15% |
Topics — the 27 heaviest of 28, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
second-order optimization |
2.3 | 3 | 2025 | Purifying Shampoo: Investigating Shampoo's Heuristics by Decomposing its Preconditioner · NeurIPS 2025 Structured Inverse-Free Natural Gradient Descent: Memory-Efficient & Numerically-Stable KFAC · ICML 2024 Kronecker-Factored Approximate Curvature for Modern Neural Network Architectures · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › second-order optimization
kronecker-factored approximate curvature |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | Structured Inverse-Free Natural Gradient Descent: Memory-Efficient & Numerically-Stable KFAC · ICML 2024 Kronecker-Factored Approximate Curvature for Modern Neural Network Architectures · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models
bayesian deep learning |
0.9 | 2 | 2021 | Laplace Redux - Effortless Bayesian Deep Learning · NeurIPS 2021 Practical Deep Learning with Bayesian Principles · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › adaptive optimization
adaptive learning rate |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Purifying Shampoo: Investigating Shampoo's Heuristics by Decomposing its Preconditioner · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › Data-centric AI
data attribution |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Influence Functions for Scalable Data Attribution in Diffusion Models · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
diffusion model |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Influence Functions for Scalable Data Attribution in Diffusion Models · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › training data attribution
influence function |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Influence Functions for Scalable Data Attribution in Diffusion Models · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Influence Functions for Scalable Data Attribution in Diffusion Models · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › second-order optimization
kronecker-factored preconditioning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Purifying Shampoo: Investigating Shampoo's Heuristics by Decomposing its Preconditioner · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
neural network training acceleration |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Accelerating neural network training: An analysis of the AlgoPerf competition · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › stochastic optimization
adaptive gradient methods |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Can We Remove the Square-Root in Adaptive Gradient Methods? A Second-Order Perspective · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › gradient-based optimization › gradient descent
natural gradient descent |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Structured Inverse-Free Natural Gradient Descent: Memory-Efficient & Numerically-Stable KFAC · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › gradient-based optimization › gradient descent
preconditioned gradient descent |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Can We Remove the Square-Root in Adaptive Gradient Methods? A Second-Order Perspective · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference
approximate bayesian inference |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Posterior Refinement Improves Sample Efficiency in Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
bayesian neural networks |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Posterior Refinement Improves Sample Efficiency in Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods
monte carlo integration |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Posterior Refinement Improves Sample Efficiency in Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › bayesian prediction
predictive distribution |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Posterior Refinement Improves Sample Efficiency in Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › approximate bayesian inference
laplace approximation |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Laplace Redux - Effortless Bayesian Deep Learning · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › continual learning
catastrophic forgetting |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Continual Deep Learning by Functional Regularisation of Memorable Past · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
continual learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Continual Deep Learning by Functional Regularisation of Memorable Past · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
functional regularization |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Continual Deep Learning by Functional Regularisation of Memorable Past · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
variational inference |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Practical Deep Learning with Bayesian Principles · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
preconditioning |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Accelerating neural network training: An analysis of the AlgoPerf competition · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference
approximate inference |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Posterior Refinement Improves Sample Efficiency in Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods › markov chain monte carlo
hamiltonian monte carlo |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Posterior Refinement Improves Sample Efficiency in Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Laplace Redux - Effortless Bayesian Deep Learning · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes
gaussian process |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Continual Deep Learning by Functional Regularisation of Memorable Past · NeurIPS 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
schedule-free adamw · 0.9influence functions · 0.9hyperparameter tuning · 0.9generalized gauss-newton · 0.9frobenius norm approximation · 0.9distributed shampoo · 0.9QR algorithm · 0.9K-FAC approximation · 0.9half-precision training · 0.8adaptive gradient methods · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Accelerating neural network training: An analysis of the AlgoPerf competitionabstractThe goal of the AlgoPerf: Training Algorithms competition is to evaluate practical speed-ups in neural network training achieved solely by improving the underlying training algorithms. In the external tuning ruleset, submissions must provide workload-agnostic hyperparameter search spaces, while in the self-tuning ruleset they must be completely hyperparameter-free. In both rulesets, submissions are compared on time-to-result across multiple deep learning workloads, training on fixed hardware. This paper presents the inaugural AlgoPerf competition's results, which drew 18 diverse submissions from 10 teams. Our investigation reveals several key findings: (1) The winning submission in the external tuning ruleset, using Distributed Shampoo, demonstrates the effectiveness of non-diagonal preconditioning over popular methods like Adam, even when compared on wall-clock runtime. (2) The winning submission in the self-tuning ruleset, based on the Schedule Free AdamW algorithm, demonstrates a new level of effectiveness for completely hyperparameter-free training algorithms. (3) The top-scoring submissions were surprisingly robust to workload changes. We also discuss the engineering challenges encountered in ensuring a fair comparison between different training algorithms. These results highlight both the significant progress so far, and the considerable room for further improvements. Priya Kasimbeg, Frank Schneider 0001, Runa Eschenhagen, Juhan Bae, Chandramouli Shama Sastry, Mark Saroufim, Boyuan Feng, Less Wright, Edward Z. Yang, Zachary Nado, Sourabh Medapati, Philipp Hennig, Michael G. Rabbat, George E. Dahl |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2025 | Influence Functions for Scalable Data Attribution in Diffusion ModelsabstractDiffusion models have led to significant advancements in generative modelling. Yet their widespread adoption poses challenges regarding data attribution and interpretability. In this paper, we aim to help address such challenges in diffusion models by extending influence functions. Influence function-based data attribution methods approximate how a model's output would have changed if some training data were removed. In supervised learning, this is usually used for predicting how the loss on a particular example would change. For diffusion models, we focus on predicting the change in the probability of generating a particular example via several proxy measurements. We show how to formulate influence functions for such quantities and how previously proposed methods can be interpreted as particular design choices in our framework. To ensure scalability of the Hessian computations in influence functions, we use a K-FAC approximation based on generalised Gauss-Newton matrices specifically tailored to diffusion models. We show that our recommended method outperforms previously proposed data attribution methods on common data attribution evaluations, such as the Linear Data-modelling Score (LDS) or retraining without top influences, without the need for method-specific hyperparameter tuning. Bruno Mlodozeniec, Runa Eschenhagen, Juhan Bae, Alexander Immer, David Krueger 0001, Richard E. Turner |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2025 | Purifying Shampoo: Investigating Shampoo's Heuristics by Decomposing its PreconditionerabstractThe recent success of Shampoo in the AlgoPerf contest has sparked renewed interest in Kronecker-factorization-based optimization algorithms for training neural networks. Despite its success, Shampoo relies heavily on several heuristics such as learning rate grafting and stale preconditioning to achieve performance at-scale. These heuristics increase algorithmic complexity, necessitate further hyperparameter tuning, and lack theoretical justification. This paper investigates these heuristics from the angle of Frobenius norm approximation to full-matrix Adam and decouples the preconditioner's eigenvalues and eigenbasis updates. We show that grafting from Adam mitigates the staleness and mis-scaling of the preconditioner's *eigenvalues* and how correcting the eigenvalues directly eliminates the need for learning rate grafting. To manage the error induced by infrequent *eigenbasis* computations, we propose an adaptive criterion for determining the eigenbasis computation frequency motivated by terminating a warm-started QR algorithm. This criterion decouples the update frequency of different preconditioner matrices and enables us to investigate the impact of approximation error on convergence. These practical techniques offer a principled angle towards removing Shampoo's heuristics and developing improved Kronecker-factorization-based training algorithms. Runa Eschenhagen, Aaron Defazio, Tsung-Hsien Lee, Richard E. Turner, Hao-Jun Michael Shi |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2024 | Can We Remove the Square-Root in Adaptive Gradient Methods? A Second-Order PerspectiveabstractAdaptive gradient optimizers like Adam(W) are the default training algorithms for many deep learning architectures, such as transformers. Their diagonal preconditioner is based on the gradient outer product which is incorporated into the parameter update via a square root. While these methods are often motivated as approximate second-order methods, the square root represents a fundamental difference. In this work, we investigate how the behavior of adaptive methods changes when we remove the root, i.e. strengthen their second-order motivation. Surprisingly, we find that such square-root-free adaptive methods close the generalization gap to SGD on convolutional architectures, while maintaining their root-based counterpart's performance on transformers. The second-order perspective also has practical benefits for the development of non-diagonal adaptive methods through the concept of preconditioner invariance. In contrast to root-based methods like Shampoo, the root-free counterparts do not require numerically unstable matrix root decompositions and inversions, thus work well in half precision. Our findings provide new insights into the development of adaptive methods and raise important questions regarding the currently overlooked role of adaptivity for their success. Wu Lin, Felix Dangel, Runa Eschenhagen, Juhan Bae, Richard E. Turner, Alireza Makhzani |
ICML | 3 |
| 2024 | Structured Inverse-Free Natural Gradient Descent: Memory-Efficient & Numerically-Stable KFACabstractSecond-order methods such as KFAC can be useful for neural net training. However, they are often memory-inefficient since their preconditioning Kronecker factors are dense, and numerically unstable in low precision as they require matrix inversion or decomposition. These limitations render such methods unpopular for modern mixed-precision training. We address them by (i) formulating an inverse-free KFAC update and (ii) imposing structures in the Kronecker factors, resulting in structured inverse-free natural gradient descent (SINGD). On modern neural networks, we show that SINGD is memory-efficient and numerically robust, in contrast to KFAC, and often outperforms AdamW even in half precision. Our work closes a gap between first- and second-order methods in modern low-precision training. Wu Lin, Felix Dangel, Runa Eschenhagen, Kirill Neklyudov, Agustinus Kristiadi, Richard E. Turner, Alireza Makhzani |
ICML | 3 |
| 2023 | Kronecker-Factored Approximate Curvature for Modern Neural Network ArchitecturesabstractThe core components of many modern neural network architectures, such as transformers, convolutional, or graph neural networks, can be expressed as linear layers with *weight-sharing*. Kronecker-Factored Approximate Curvature (K-FAC), a second-order optimisation method, has shown promise to speed up neural network training and thereby reduce computational costs. However, there is currently no framework to apply it to generic architectures, specifically ones with linear weight-sharing layers. In this work, we identify two different settings of linear weight-sharing layers which motivate two flavours of K-FAC -- *expand* and *reduce*. We show that they are exact for deep linear networks with weight-sharing in their respective setting. Notably, K-FAC-reduce is generally faster than K-FAC-expand, which we leverage to speed up automatic hyperparameter selection via optimising the marginal likelihood for a Wide ResNet. Finally, we observe little difference between these two K-FAC variations when using them to train both a graph neural network and a vision transformer. However, both variations are able to reach a fixed validation metric target in $50$-$75$\% of the number of steps of a first-order reference run, which translates into a comparable improvement in wall-clock time. This highlights the potential of applying K-FAC to modern neural network architectures. Runa Eschenhagen, Alexander Immer, Richard E. Turner, Frank Schneider 0001, Philipp Hennig |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2022 | Posterior Refinement Improves Sample Efficiency in Bayesian Neural NetworksabstractMonte Carlo (MC) integration is the de facto method for approximating the predictive distribution of Bayesian neural networks (BNNs). But, even with many MC samples, Gaussian-based BNNs could still yield bad predictive performance due to the posterior approximation's error. Meanwhile, alternatives to MC integration are expensive. In this work, we experimentally show that the key to good MC-approximated predictive distributions is the quality of the approximate posterior itself. However, previous methods for obtaining accurate posterior approximations are expensive and non-trivial to implement. We, therefore, propose to refine Gaussian approximate posteriors with normalizing flows. When applied to last-layer BNNs, it yields a simple, cost-efficient, post hoc method for improving pre-existing parametric approximations. We show that the resulting posterior approximation is competitive with even the gold-standard full-batch Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Agustinus Kristiadi, Runa Eschenhagen, Philipp Hennig |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2021 | Laplace Redux - Effortless Bayesian Deep LearningabstractBayesian formulations of deep learning have been shown to have compelling theoretical properties and offer practical functional benefits, such as improved predictive uncertainty quantification and model selection. The Laplace approximation (LA) is a classic, and arguably the simplest family of approximations for the intractable posteriors of deep neural networks. Yet, despite its simplicity, the LA is not as popular as alternatives like variational Bayes or deep ensembles. This may be due to assumptions that the LA is expensive due to the involved Hessian computation, that it is difficult to implement, or that it yields inferior results. In this work we show that these are misconceptions: we (i) review the range of variants of the LA including versions with minimal cost overhead; (ii) introduce "laplace", an easy-to-use software library for PyTorch offering user-friendly access to all major flavors of the LA; and (iii) demonstrate through extensive experiments that the LA is competitive with more popular alternatives in terms of performance, while excelling in terms of computational cost. We hope that this work will serve as a catalyst to a wider adoption of the LA in practical deep learning, including in domains where Bayesian approaches are not typically considered at the moment. Erik A. Daxberger, Agustinus Kristiadi, Alexander Immer, Runa Eschenhagen, Matthias Bauer 0001, Philipp Hennig |
NeurIPS | 4 |
| 2020 | Continual Deep Learning by Functional Regularisation of Memorable PastabstractContinually learning new skills is important for intelligent systems, yet standard deep learning methods suffer from catastrophic forgetting of the past. Recent works address this with weight regularisation. Functional regularisation, although computationally expensive, is expected to perform better, but rarely does so in practice. In this paper, we fix this issue by using a new functional-regularisation approach that utilises a few memorable past examples crucial to avoid forgetting. By using a Gaussian Process formulation of deep networks, our approach enables training in weight-space while identifying both the memorable past and a functional prior. Our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on standard benchmarks and opens a new direction for life-long learning where regularisation and memory-based methods are naturally combined. Pingbo Pan, Siddharth Swaroop, Alexander Immer, Runa Eschenhagen, Richard E. Turner, Mohammad Emtiyaz Khan |
NeurIPS | 4 |
| 2019 | Practical Deep Learning with Bayesian PrinciplesabstractBayesian methods promise to fix many shortcomings of deep learning, but they are impractical and rarely match the performance of standard methods, let alone improve them. In this paper, we demonstrate practical training of deep networks with natural-gradient variational inference. By applying techniques such as batch normalisation, data augmentation, and distributed training, we achieve similar performance in about the same number of epochs as the Adam optimiser, even on large datasets such as ImageNet. Importantly, the benefits of Bayesian principles are preserved: predictive probabilities are well-calibrated, uncertainties on out-of-distribution data are improved, and continual-learning performance is boosted. This work enables practical deep learning while preserving benefits of Bayesian principles. A PyTorch implementation is available as a plug-and-play optimiser. Kazuki Osawa, Siddharth Swaroop, Mohammad Emtiyaz Khan, Anirudh Jain, Runa Eschenhagen, Richard E. Turner, Rio Yokota |
NeurIPS | 5 |