Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Julia Linhart
dblp:334/0671
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—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% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, 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
posterior approximation evaluation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | L-C2ST: Local Diagnostics for Posterior Approximations in Simulation-Based Inference · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › approximate bayesian inference
simulation-based inference |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | L-C2ST: Local Diagnostics for Posterior Approximations in Simulation-Based Inference · NeurIPS 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
normalizing flow · 0.7classifier two-sample tests · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | L-C2ST: Local Diagnostics for Posterior Approximations in Simulation-Based InferenceabstractMany recent works in simulation-based inference (SBI) rely on deep generative models to approximate complex, high-dimensional posterior distributions. However, evaluating whether or not these approximations can be trusted remains a challenge. Most approaches evaluate the posterior estimator only in expectation over the observation space. This limits their interpretability and is not sufficient to identify for which observations the approximation can be trusted or should be improved. Building upon the well-known classifier two-sample test (C2ST), we introduce $\ell$-C2ST, a new method that allows for a local evaluation of the posterior estimator at any given observation. It offers theoretically grounded and easy to interpret -- e.g. graphical -- diagnostics, and unlike C2ST, does not require access to samples from the true posterior. In the case of normalizing flow-based posterior estimators, $\ell$-C2ST can be specialized to offer better statistical power, while being computationally more efficient. On standard SBI benchmarks, $\ell$-C2ST provides comparable results to C2ST and outperforms alternative local approaches such as coverage tests based on highest predictive density (HPD). We further highlight the importance of local evaluation and the benefit of interpretability of $\ell$-C2ST on a challenging application from computational neuroscience. Julia Linhart, Alexandre Gramfort, Pedro Rodrigues 0002 |
NeurIPS | 1 |