VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Edward Meeds
dblp:61/6805
· DBLP profile ↗
13ranked-venue papers
7as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 12 · 6 first-author · 3 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author
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
9 papers |
Efficient and distributed learning · 28% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 25% Optimization for machine learning · 20% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% |
Topics — the 22 heaviest of 25, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
memory-efficient training |
1.7 | 2 | 2025 | Gradient Multi-Normalization for Efficient LLM Training · NeurIPS 2025 SWAN: SGD with Normalization and Whitening Enables Stateless LLM Training · ICML 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model training |
1.1 | 2 | 2025 | SWAN: SGD with Normalization and Whitening Enables Stateless LLM Training · ICML 2025 Gradient Multi-Normalization for Efficient LLM Training · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
stochastic gradient descent |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | SWAN: SGD with Normalization and Whitening Enables Stateless LLM Training · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference › amortized inference
amortized variational inference |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Efficient Amortised Bayesian Inference for Hierarchical and Nonlinear Dynamical Systems · ICML 2019 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
bayesian inference |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Efficient Amortised Bayesian Inference for Hierarchical and Nonlinear Dynamical Systems · ICML 2019 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
bayesian neural networks |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Deterministic Variational Inference for Robust Bayesian Neural Networks · ICLR 2019 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › model robustness
robust inference |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Deterministic Variational Inference for Robust Bayesian Neural Networks · ICLR 2019 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Deterministic Variational Inference for Robust Bayesian Neural Networks · ICLR 2019 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
variational autoencoder |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Efficient Amortised Bayesian Inference for Hierarchical and Nonlinear Dynamical Systems · ICML 2019 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
variational inference |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Deterministic Variational Inference for Robust Bayesian Neural Networks · ICLR 2019 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
model compression |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Soft Weight-Sharing for Neural Network Compression · ICLR (Poster) 2017 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
parameter sharing |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Soft Weight-Sharing for Neural Network Compression · ICLR (Poster) 2017 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › approximate bayesian inference
approximate bayesian computation |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Optimization Monte Carlo: Efficient and Embarrassingly Parallel Likelihood-Free Inference · NIPS 2015 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › approximate bayesian inference
simulation-based inference |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Optimization Monte Carlo: Efficient and Embarrassingly Parallel Likelihood-Free Inference · NIPS 2015 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression
pruning |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Soft Weight-Sharing for Neural Network Compression · ICLR (Poster) 2017 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference
bayesian nonparametric model |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Learning stick-figure models using nonparametric Bayesian priors over trees · CVPR 2008 |
High-performance computing › parallel numerical algorithms
parallel monte carlo |
0.1 | 1 | 2015 | Optimization Monte Carlo: Efficient and Embarrassingly Parallel Likelihood-Free Inference · NIPS 2015 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models
latent variable model |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | Modeling Dyadic Data with Binary Latent Factors · NIPS 2006 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › bayesian nonparametric model
infinite mixture model |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | An Alternative Infinite Mixture Of Gaussian Process Experts · NIPS 2005 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
mixture of experts |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | An Alternative Infinite Mixture Of Gaussian Process Experts · NIPS 2005 |
Computer animation and physical simulation › motion capture
motion capture data processing |
0.0 | 1 | 2008 | Learning stick-figure models using nonparametric Bayesian priors over trees · CVPR 2008 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes
gaussian process |
0.0 | 1 | 2005 | An Alternative Infinite Mixture Of Gaussian Process Experts · NIPS 2005 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
whitening · 0.9normalization · 0.9matrix normalization · 0.9gradient multi-normalization · 0.9alternating scheme · 0.9SGD · 0.9neural ODE · 0.8mixed-effects modeling · 0.8variational inference · 0.4variational autoencoder · 0.4stochastic optimization · 0.4deterministic approximation · 0.4optimization · 0.2monte carlo · 0.2importance reweighting · 0.2nonparametric bayesian prior over trees · 0.1nonparametric bayesian inference · 0.1indian buffet process · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | SWAN: SGD with Normalization and Whitening Enables Stateless LLM TrainingabstractAdaptive optimizers such as Adam (Kingma & Ba, 2015) have been central to the success of large language models. However, they often require maintaining optimizer states throughout training, which can result in memory requirements several times greater than the model footprint. This overhead imposes constraints on scalability and computational efficiency. Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD), in contrast, is a stateless optimizer, as it does not track state variables during training. Consequently, it achieves optimal memory efficiency. However, its capability in LLM training is limited (Zhao et al., 2024b) In this work, we show that pre-processing SGD using normalization and whitening in a stateless manner can achieve similar performance as Adam for LLM training, while maintaining the same memory footprint of SGD. Specifically, we show that normalization stabilizes gradient distributions, and whitening counteracts the local curvature of the loss landscape. This results in SWAN (SGD with Whitening And Normalization), a stochastic optimizer that eliminates the need to store any optimizer states. Empirically, SWAN achieves 50% reduction on total end-to-end memory compared to Adam. Under the memory-efficienct LLaMA training benchmark of (Zhao et al., 2024a), SWAN reaches the same evaluation perplexity using half as many tokens for 350M and 1.3B model. Chao Ma 0019, Wenbo Gong 0001, Meyer Scetbon, Edward Meeds |
ICML | 4 |
| 2025 | Gradient Multi-Normalization for Efficient LLM TrainingabstractTraining large language models (LLMs) commonly relies on adaptive optimizers such as Adam (Kingma & Ba 2015), which accelerate convergence through moment estimates but incur substantial memory overhead. Recent stateless approaches such as SWAN (Ma et al., 2024) have shown that appropriate preprocessing of instantaneous gradient matrices can match the performance of adaptive methods without storing optimizer states. Building on this insight, we introduce \emph{gradient multi-normalization}, a principled framework for designing stateless optimizers that normalize gradients with respect to multiple norms simultaneously. Whereas standard first-order methods can be viewed as gradient normalization under a single norm (Bernstein & Newhouse, 2024), our formulation generalizes this perspective to a multi-norm setting. We derive an efficient alternating scheme that enforces these normalization constraints and show that our procedure can produce, up to an arbitrary precision, a fixed-point of the problem. This unifies and extends prior stateless optimizers, showing that SWAN arises as a specific instance with particular norm choices. Leveraging this principle, we develop SinkGD, a lightweight matrix optimizer that retains the memory footprint of SGD while substantially reducing computation relative to whitening-based methods. On the memory-efficient LLaMA training benchmark (Zhao et al., 2024), SinkGD achieves state-of-the-art performance, reaching the same evaluation perplexity as Adam using only 40\% of the training tokens. Meyer Scetbon, Chao Ma 0019, Wenbo Gong 0001, Edward Meeds |
NeurIPS | 4 |
| 2022 | Capturing actionable dynamics with structured latent ordinary differential equationsabstractEnd-to-end learning of dynamical systems with black-box models, such as neural ordinary differential equations (ODEs), provides a flexible framework for learning dynamics from data without prescribing a mathematical model for the dynamics. Unfortunately, this flexibility comes at the cost of understanding the dynamical system, for which ODEs are used ubiquitously. Further, experimental data are collected under various conditions (inputs), such as treatments, or grouped in some way, such as part of sub-populations. Understanding the effects of these system inputs on system outputs is crucial to have any meaningful model of a dynamical system. To that end, we propose a structured latent ODE model that explicitly captures system input variations within its latent representation. Building on a static latent variable specification, our model learns (independent) stochastic factors of variation for each input to the system, thus separating the effects of the system inputs in the latent space. This approach provides actionable modeling through the controlled generation of time-series data for novel input combinations (or perturbations). Additionally, we propose a flexible approach for quantifying uncertainties, leveraging a quantile regression formulation. Results on challenging biological datasets show consistent improvements over competitive baselines in the controlled generation of observational data and inference of biologically meaningful system inputs. Paidamoyo Chapfuwa, Sherri Rose, Lawrence Carin, Edward Meeds, Ricardo Henao |
UAI | 4 |
| 2019 | Deterministic Variational Inference for Robust Bayesian Neural Networks
Anqi Wu, Sebastian Nowozin, Edward Meeds, Richard E. Turner, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato, Alexander L. Gaunt |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2019 | Efficient Amortised Bayesian Inference for Hierarchical and Nonlinear Dynamical SystemsabstractWe introduce a flexible, scalable Bayesian inference framework for nonlinear dynamical systems characterised by distinct and hierarchical variability at the individual, group, and population levels. Our model class is a generalisation of nonlinear mixed-effects (NLME) dynamical systems, the statistical workhorse for many experimental sciences. We cast parameter inference as stochastic optimisation of an end-to-end differentiable, block-conditional variational autoencoder. We specify the dynamics of the data-generating process as an ordinary differential equation (ODE) such that both the ODE and its solver are fully differentiable. This model class is highly flexible: the ODE right-hand sides can be a mixture of user-prescribed or "white-box" sub-components and neural network or "black-box" sub-components. Using stochastic optimisation, our amortised inference algorithm could seamlessly scale up to massive data collection pipelines (common in labs with robotic automation). Finally, our framework supports interpretability with respect to the underlying dynamics, as well as predictive generalization to unseen combinations of group components (also called “zero-shot" learning). We empirically validate our method by predicting the dynamic behaviour of bacteria that were genetically engineered to function as biosensors. Geoffrey Roeder, Paul K. Grant, Andrew Phillips, Neil Dalchau, Edward Meeds |
ICML | 5 |
| 2017 | Soft Weight-Sharing for Neural Network Compression
Karen Ullrich, Edward Meeds, Max Welling |
ICLR (Poster) | 2 |
| 2015 | Optimization Monte Carlo: Efficient and Embarrassingly Parallel Likelihood-Free InferenceabstractWe describe an embarrassingly parallel, anytime Monte Carlo method for likelihood-free models. The algorithm starts with the view that the stochasticity of the pseudo-samples generated by the simulator can be controlled externally by a vector of random numbers u, in such a way that the outcome, knowing u, is deterministic. For each instantiation of u we run an optimization procedure to minimize the distance between summary statistics of the simulator and the data. After reweighing these samples using the prior and the Jacobian (accounting for the change of volume in transforming from the space of summary statistics to the space of parameters) we show that this weighted ensemble represents a Monte Carlo estimate of the posterior distribution. The procedure can be run embarrassingly parallel (each node handling one sample) and anytime (by allocating resources to the worst performing sample). The procedure is validated on six experiments. Edward Meeds, Max Welling |
NIPS | 1 |
| 2015 | Hamiltonian ABC
Edward Meeds, Robert Leenders, Max Welling |
UAI | 1 |
| 2015 | POPE: post optimization posterior evaluation of likelihood free modelsabstractBACKGROUND: In many domains, scientists build complex simulators of natural phenomena that encode their hypotheses about the underlying processes. These simulators can be deterministic or stochastic, fast or slow, constrained or unconstrained, and so on. Optimizing the simulators with respect to a set of parameter values is common practice, resulting in a single parameter setting that minimizes an objective subject to constraints. RESULTS: We propose algorithms for post optimization posterior evaluation (POPE) of simulators. The algorithms compute and visualize all simulations that can generate results of the same or better quality than the optimum, subject to constraints. These optimization posteriors are desirable for a number of reasons among which are easy interpretability, automatic parameter sensitivity and correlation analysis, and posterior predictive analysis. Our algorithms are simple extensions to an existing simulation-based inference framework called approximate Bayesian computation. POPE is applied two biological simulators: a fast and stochastic simulator of stem-cell cycling and a slow and deterministic simulator of tumor growth patterns. CONCLUSIONS: POPE allows the scientist to explore and understand the role that constraints, both on the input and the output, have on the optimization posterior. As a Bayesian inference procedure, POPE provides a rigorous framework for the analysis of the uncertainty of an optimal simulation parameter setting. Edward Meeds, Michael Chiang, Mary Lee, Olivier Cinquin, John S. Lowengrub, Max Welling |
BMC Bioinform. | 1 |
| 2014 | GPS-ABC: Gaussian Process Surrogate Approximate Bayesian Computation
Edward Meeds, Max Welling |
UAI | 1 |
| 2008 | Learning stick-figure models using nonparametric Bayesian priors over treesabstractWe present a probabilistic stick-figure model that uses a nonparametric Bayesian distribution over trees for its structure prior. Sticks are represented by nodes in a tree in such a way that their parameter distributions are probabilistically centered around their parent node. This prior enables the inference procedures to learn multiple explanations for motion-capture data, each of which could be trees of different depth and path lengths. Thus, the algorithm can automatically determine a reasonable distribution over the number of sticks in a given dataset and their hierarchical relationships. We provide experimental results on several motion-capture datasets, demonstrating the modelpsilas ability to recover plausible stick-figure structure, and also the modelpsilas robust behavior when faced with occlusion. Edward Meeds, David A. Ross, Richard S. Zemel, Sam T. Roweis |
CVPR | 1 |
| 2006 | Modeling Dyadic Data with Binary Latent FactorsabstractWe introduce binary matrix factorization, a novel model for unsupervised ma- trix decomposition. The decomposition is learned by fitting a non-parametric Bayesian probabilistic model with binary latent variables to a matrix of dyadic data. Unlike bi-clustering models, which assign each row or column to a single cluster based on a categorical hidden feature, our binary feature model reflects the prior belief that items and attributes can be associated with more than one latent cluster at a time. We provide simple learning and inference rules for this new model and show how to extend it to an infinite model in which the number of features is not a priori fixed but is allowed to grow with the size of the data. 1 Distributed representations for dyadic data One of the major goals of probabilistic unsupervised learning is to discover underlying or hidden structure in a dataset by using latent variables to describe a complex data generation process. In this paper we focus on dyadic data: our domains have two finite sets of objects/entities and observa- tions are made on dyads (pairs with one element from each set). Examples include sparse matrices of movie-viewer ratings, word-document counts or product-customer purchases. A simple way to capture structure in this kind of data is to do “bi-clustering” (possibly using mixture models) by grouping the rows and (independently or simultaneously) the columns[6, 13, 9]. The modelling as- sumption in such a case is that movies come in types and viewers in types and that knowing componential structure: each item (row) has associated with it an unobserved vector of binary features; similarly each attribute (column) has a hidden vector of binary features. Knowing the matrixX into (a distribution defined by) the productUWV> , whereU andV are binary feature matrices, andW is a real-valued weight matrix. Below, we develop this binary matrix factorization the type of movie and type of viewer is sufficient to predict the response. Clustering or mixture models are quite restrictive – their major disadvantage is that they do not admit a componential or distributed representation because items cannot simultaneously belong to several classes. (A movie, for example, might be explained as coming from a cluster of “dramas” or “comedies”; a viewer as a “single male” or as a “young mother”.) We might instead prefer a model (e.g. [10, 5]) in which objects can be assigned to multiple latent clusters: a movie might be a drama and have won an Os- car and have subtitles; a viewer might be single and female and a university graduate. Inference in such models falls under the broad area of factorial learning (e.g. [7, 1, 3, 12]), in which multiple interacting latent causes explain each observed datum. features of the item and the features of the attribute are sufficient to generate (before noise) the response at that location in the matrix. In effect, we are factorizing a real-valued data (response) In this paper, we assume that both data items (rows) and attributes (columns) have this kind of Edward Meeds, Zoubin Ghahramani, Radford M. Neal, Sam T. Roweis |
NIPS | 1 |
| 2005 | An Alternative Infinite Mixture Of Gaussian Process ExpertsabstractWe present an infinite mixture model in which each component com- prises a multivariate Gaussian distribution over an input space, and a Gaussian Process model over an output space. Our model is neatly able to deal with non-stationary covariance functions, discontinuities, multi- modality and overlapping output signals. The work is similar to that by Rasmussen and Ghahramani [1]; however, we use a full generative model over input and output space rather than just a conditional model. This al- lows us to deal with incomplete data, to perform inference over inverse functional mappings as well as for regression, and also leads to a more powerful and consistent Bayesian specification of the effective ‘gating network’ for the different experts. Edward Meeds, Simon Osindero |
NIPS | 1 |