Sameer K. Deshpande

dblp:268/6873 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 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 · 87% Learning theory · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
approximate cross-validation
0.412020
Approximate Cross-Validation for Structured Models · NeurIPS 2020
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
structured models
0.412020
Approximate Cross-Validation for Structured Models · NeurIPS 2020
Machine learning › Learning theory
empirical risk minimization
0.112020
Approximate Cross-Validation for Structured Models · NeurIPS 2020

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

influence functions · 0.4approximate cross-validation · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Measuring the robustness of Gaussian processes to kernel choice
abstract
Gaussian processes (GPs) are used to make medical and scientific decisions, including in cardiac care and monitoring of carbon dioxide emissions. Notably, the choice of GP kernel is often somewhat arbitrary. In particular, uncountably many kernels typically align with qualitative prior knowledge (e.g. function smoothness or stationarity). But in practice, data analysts choose among a handful of convenient standard kernels (e.g. squared exponential). In the present work, we ask: Would decisions made with a GP differ under other, qualitatively interchangeable kernels? We show how to formulate this sensitivity analysis as a constrained optimization problem over a finite-dimensional space. We can then use standard optimizers to identify substantive changes in relevant decisions made with a GP. We demonstrate in both synthetic and real-world examples that decisions made with a GP can exhibit substantial sensitivity to kernel choice, even when prior draws are qualitatively interchangeable to a user.
William T. Stephenson, Soumya Ghosh, Tin D. Nguyen, Mikhail Yurochkin, Sameer K. Deshpande, Tamara Broderick
AISTATS5
2020 Approximate Cross-Validation for Structured Models
abstract
Many modern data analyses benefit from explicitly modeling dependence structure in data -- such as measurements across time or space, ordered words in a sentence, or genes in a genome. A gold standard evaluation technique is structured cross-validation (CV), which leaves out some data subset (such as data within a time interval or data in a geographic region) in each fold. But CV here can be prohibitively slow due to the need to re-run already-expensive learning algorithms many times. Previous work has shown approximate cross-validation (ACV) methods provide a fast and provably accurate alternative in the setting of empirical risk minimization. But this existing ACV work is restricted to simpler models by the assumptions that (i) data across CV folds are independent and (ii) an exact initial model fit is available. In structured data analyses, both these assumptions are often untrue. In the present work, we address (i) by extending ACV to CV schemes with dependence structure between the folds. To address (ii), we verify -- both theoretically and empirically -- that ACV quality deteriorates smoothly with noise in the initial fit. We demonstrate the accuracy and computational benefits of our proposed methods on a diverse set of real-world applications.
Soumya Ghosh, William T. Stephenson, Tin D. Nguyen, Sameer K. Deshpande, Tamara Broderick
NeurIPS4