Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Carl E. Rasmussen
dblp:83/5440 · also Carl Edward Rasmussen
· DBLP profile ↗
56ranked-venue papers
9as first author
6since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0001-8899-7850ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 52 · 8 first-author · 6 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2 · 1 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 1
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
42 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 66% Reinforcement learning · 10% Learning theory · 5% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
4 papers |
Environmental and earth informatics · 78% Bioinformatics and computational biology · 17% Medical and health informatics · 3% |
Topics — the 30 heaviest of 82, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes
gaussian process |
5.4 | 25 | 2024 | Numerically Stable Sparse Gaussian Processes via Minimum Separation using Cover Trees · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024 Sparse Gaussian Process Hyperparameters: Optimize or Integrate? · NeurIPS 2022 Marginalised Gaussian Processes with Nested Sampling · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
variational inference |
1.0 | 4 | 2022 | Overcoming Mean-Field Approximations in Recurrent Gaussian Process Models · ICML 2019 Convolutional Gaussian Processes · NIPS 2017 Variational Gaussian Process State-Space Models · NIPS 2014 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-based reinforcement learning |
1.0 | 4 | 2018 | PIPPS: Flexible Model-Based Policy Search Robust to the Curse of Chaos · ICML 2018 Data-Efficient Reinforcement Learning in Continuous State-Action Gaussian-POMDPs · NIPS 2017 Gaussian Processes for Data-Efficient Learning in Robotics and Control · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2015 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process › sparse gaussian process
sparse variational gaussian process |
0.8 | 2 | 2020 | Convergence of Sparse Variational Inference in Gaussian Processes Regression · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2020 Rates of Convergence for Sparse Variational Gaussian Process Regression · ICML 2019 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
bayesian inference |
0.8 | 3 | 2022 | Sparse Gaussian Process Hyperparameters: Optimize or Integrate? · NeurIPS 2022 Bayesian Inference and Learning in Gaussian Process State-Space Models with Particle MCMC · NIPS 2013 A Practical Monte Carlo Implementation of Bayesian Learning · NIPS 1995 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process
sparse gaussian process |
0.7 | 2 | 2022 | Sparse Gaussian Process Hyperparameters: Optimize or Integrate? · NeurIPS 2022 Bayesian Inference and Learning in Gaussian Process State-Space Models with Particle MCMC · NIPS 2013 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
policy search |
0.6 | 3 | 2018 | PIPPS: Flexible Model-Based Policy Search Robust to the Curse of Chaos · ICML 2018 Policy search for learning robot control using sparse data · ICRA 2014 PILCO: A Model-Based and Data-Efficient Approach to Policy Search · ICML 2011 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process
gaussian process regression |
0.5 | 4 | 2020 | Convergence of Sparse Variational Inference in Gaussian Processes Regression · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2020 A Unifying View of Sparse Approximate Gaussian Process Regression · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2005 Gaussian Process Priors with Uncertain Inputs - Application to Multiple-Step Ahead Time Series Forecasting · NIPS 2002 |
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
kernel selection |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Kernel Identification Through Transformers · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › sampling
nested sampling |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Marginalised Gaussian Processes with Nested Sampling · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
transformer |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Kernel Identification Through Transformers · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
bayesian neural networks |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Ensembling geophysical models with Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Ensembling geophysical models with Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › neural network theory › infinite-width limit
gaussian process limit |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Deep Convolutional Networks as shallow Gaussian Processes · ICLR (Poster) 2019 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference
mean-field approximation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Overcoming Mean-Field Approximations in Recurrent Gaussian Process Models · ICML 2019 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
neural network theory |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Deep Convolutional Networks as shallow Gaussian Processes · ICLR (Poster) 2019 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
state space model |
0.4 | 2 | 2014 | Variational Gaussian Process State-Space Models · NIPS 2014 Bayesian Inference and Learning in Gaussian Process State-Space Models with Particle MCMC · NIPS 2013 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process › sparse gaussian process
sparse gaussian process regression |
0.4 | 3 | 2014 | Distributed Variational Inference in Sparse Gaussian Process Regression and Latent Variable Models · NIPS 2014 Sparse Spectrum Gaussian Process Regression · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2010 A Unifying View of Sparse Approximate Gaussian Process Regression · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2005 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › policy optimization
policy gradient |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | PIPPS: Flexible Model-Based Policy Search Robust to the Curse of Chaos · ICML 2018 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference
reparameterization gradient |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | PIPPS: Flexible Model-Based Policy Search Robust to the Curse of Chaos · ICML 2018 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process
sparse approximation |
0.3 | 2 | 2016 | Understanding Probabilistic Sparse Gaussian Process Approximations · NIPS 2016 A Unifying View of Sparse Approximate Gaussian Process Regression · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2005 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › motion planning › motion planning under uncertainty
belief space planning |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Data-Efficient Reinforcement Learning in Continuous State-Action Gaussian-POMDPs · NIPS 2017 |
Machine learning › Time series and sequential data › time series analysis › bayesian filtering and smoothing
belief-state filtering |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Data-Efficient Reinforcement Learning in Continuous State-Action Gaussian-POMDPs · NIPS 2017 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process
gaussian process dynamical model |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Data-Efficient Reinforcement Learning in Continuous State-Action Gaussian-POMDPs · NIPS 2017 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning under uncertainty
partially observable markov decision process |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Data-Efficient Reinforcement Learning in Continuous State-Action Gaussian-POMDPs · NIPS 2017 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference › variational objective
variational free energy |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Understanding Probabilistic Sparse Gaussian Process Approximations · NIPS 2016 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
robot control |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Gaussian Processes for Data-Efficient Learning in Robotics and Control · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2015 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
robot learning |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Policy search for learning robot control using sparse data · ICRA 2014 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation › probabilistic numerics
bayesian quadrature |
0.2 | 2 | 2012 | Active Learning of Model Evidence Using Bayesian Quadrature · NIPS 2012 Bayesian Monte Carlo · NIPS 2002 |
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
kernel methods |
0.2 | 2 | 2011 | Additive Gaussian Processes · NIPS 2011 Healing the relevance vector machine through augmentation · ICML 2005 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
gaussian process · 1.4variational inference · 1.3minimum separation · 0.8inducing points · 0.8cover tree · 0.8markov chain monte carlo · 0.7variational inducing points · 0.6stochastic variational inference · 0.6transformer · 0.5self-attention · 0.5matrix operations · 0.4inducing variables · 0.4heteroscedastic uncertainty modeling · 0.4bayesian neural network · 0.4kernel methods · 0.0local linear models · 0.0importance sampling · 0.0gaussian process regression · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Numerically Stable Sparse Gaussian Processes via Minimum Separation using Cover TreesabstractGaussian processes are frequently deployed as part of larger machine learning and decision-making systems, for instance in geospatial modeling, Bayesian optimization, or in latent Gaussian models. Within a system, the Gaussian process model needs to perform in a stable and reliable manner to ensure it interacts correctly with other parts of the system. In this work, we study the numerical stability of scalable sparse approximations based on inducing points. To do so, we first review numerical stability, and illustrate typical situations in which Gaussian process models can be unstable. Building on stability theory originally developed in the interpolation literature, we derive sufficient and in certain cases necessary conditions on the inducing points for the computations performed to be numerically stable. For low-dimensional tasks such as geospatial modeling, we propose an automated method for computing inducing points satisfying these conditions. This is done via a modification of the cover tree data structure, which is of independent interest. We additionally propose an alternative sparse approximation for regression with a Gaussian likelihood which trades off a small amount of performance to further improve stability. We provide illustrative examples showing the relationship between stability of calculations and predictive performance of inducing point methods on spatial tasks. Alexander Terenin, David R. Burt, Artem Artemev, Seth R. Flaxman, Mark van der Wilk, Carl E. Rasmussen |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 6 |
| 2022 | Sparse Gaussian Process Hyperparameters: Optimize or Integrate?abstractThe kernel function and its hyperparameters are the central model selection choice in a Gaussian process (Rasmussen and Williams, 2006).Typically, the hyperparameters of the kernel are chosen by maximising the marginal likelihood, an approach known as Type-II maximum likelihood (ML-II). However, ML-II does not account for hyperparameter uncertainty, and it is well-known that this can lead to severely biased estimates and an underestimation of predictive uncertainty. While there are several works which employ fully Bayesian characterisation of GPs, relatively few propose such approaches for the sparse GPs paradigm. In this work we propose an algorithm for sparse Gaussian process regression which leverages MCMC to sample from the hyperparameter posterior within the variational inducing point framework of (Titsias, 2009). This work is closely related to (Hensman et al, 2015b) but side-steps the need to sample the inducing points, thereby significantly improving sampling efficiency in the Gaussian likelihood case. We compare this scheme against natural baselines in literature along with stochastic variational GPs (SVGPs) along with an extensive computational analysis. Vidhi Lalchand, Wessel P. Bruinsma, David R. Burt, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NeurIPS | 4 |
| 2021 | Clipping Loops for Sample-Efficient Dialogue Policy OptimisationabstractTraining dialogue agents requires a large number of interactions with users: agents have no idea about which responses are bad among a lengthy dialogue.In this paper, we propose loop-clipping policy optimisation (LCPO) to eliminate useless responses.LCPO consists of two stages: loop clipping and advantage clipping.In loop clipping, we clip off useless responses (called loops) from dialogue history (called trajectories).The clipped trajectories are more succinct than the original ones, and the estimation of state-value is more accurate.Second, in advantage clipping, we estimate and clip the advantages of useless responses and normal ones separately.The clipped advantage distinguishes useless actions from others and reduces the probabilities of useless actions efficiently.In experiments on Cambridge Restaurant Dialogue System, LCPO uses only 260 training dialogues to achieve 80% success rate, while PPO baseline requires 2160 dialogues.Besides, LCPO receives 3.7/5 scores in human evaluation where the agent interactively collects 100 real-user dialogues in the training phase. Yen-Chen Wu, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NAACL-HLT | 2 |
| 2021 | Kernel Identification Through TransformersabstractKernel selection plays a central role in determining the performance of Gaussian Process (GP) models, as the chosen kernel determines both the inductive biases and prior support of functions under the GP prior. This work addresses the challenge of constructing custom kernel functions for high-dimensional GP regression models. Drawing inspiration from recent progress in deep learning, we introduce a novel approach named KITT: Kernel Identification Through Transformers. KITT exploits a transformer-based architecture to generate kernel recommendations in under 0.1 seconds, which is several orders of magnitude faster than conventional kernel search algorithms. We train our model using synthetic data generated from priors over a vocabulary of known kernels. By exploiting the nature of the self-attention mechanism, KITT is able to process datasets with inputs of arbitrary dimension. We demonstrate that kernels chosen by KITT yield strong performance over a diverse collection of regression benchmarks. Fergus Simpson, Ian Davies, Vidhi Lalchand, Alessandro Vullo, Nicolas Durrande, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NeurIPS | 6 |
| 2021 | Marginalised Gaussian Processes with Nested SamplingabstractGaussian Process models are a rich distribution over functions with inductive biases controlled by a kernel function. Learning occurs through optimisation of the kernel hyperparameters using the marginal likelihood as the objective. This work proposes nested sampling as a means of marginalising kernel hyperparameters, because it is a technique that is well-suited to exploring complex, multi-modal distributions. We benchmark against Hamiltonian Monte Carlo on time-series and two-dimensional regression tasks, finding that a principled approach to quantifying hyperparameter uncertainty substantially improves the quality of prediction intervals. Fergus Simpson, Vidhi Lalchand, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2021 | The promises and pitfalls of deep kernel learningabstractDeep kernel learning and related techniques promise to combine the representational power of neural networks with the reliable uncertainty estimates of Gaussian processes. One crucial aspect of these models is an expectation that, because they are treated as Gaussian process models optimized using the marginal likelihood, they are protected from overfitting. However, we identify pathological behavior, including overfitting, on a simple toy example. We explore this pathology, explaining its origins and considering how it applies to real datasets. Through careful experimentation on UCI datasets, CIFAR-10, and the UTKFace dataset, we find that the overfitting from overparameterized deep kernel learning, in which the model is “somewhat Bayesian”, can in certain scenarios be worse than that from not being Bayesian at all. However, we find that a fully Bayesian treatment of deep kernel learning can rectify this overfitting and obtain the desired performance improvements over standard neural networks and Gaussian processes. Sebastian W. Ober, Carl E. Rasmussen, Mark van der Wilk |
UAI | 2 |
| 2020 | Deep Structured Mixtures of Gaussian ProcessesabstractGaussian Processes (GPs) are powerful non-parametric Bayesian regression models that allow exact posterior inference, but exhibit high computational and memory costs. In order to improve scalability of GPs, approximate posterior inference is frequently employed, where a prominent class of approximation techniques is based on local GP experts. However, local-expert techniques proposed so far are either not well-principled, come with limited approximation guarantees, or lead to intractable models. In this paper, we introduce deep structured mixtures of GP experts, a stochastic process model which i) allows exact posterior inference, ii) has attractive computational and memory costs, and iii) when used as GP approximation, captures predictive uncertainties consistently better than previous expert-based approximations. In a variety of experiments, we show that deep structured mixtures have a low approximation error and often perform competitive or outperform prior work. Martin Trapp 0001, Robert Peharz, Franz Pernkopf, Carl E. Rasmussen |
AISTATS | 4 |
| 2020 | Improving Sample-Efficiency in Reinforcement Learning for Dialogue Systems by Using Trainable-Action-MaskabstractBy interacting with human and learning from reward signals, reinforcement learning is an ideal way to build conversational AI. Concerning the expenses of real-users' responses, improving sample-efficiency has been the key issue when applying reinforcement learning in real-world spoken dialogue systems (SDS). Handcrafted action masks are commonly used to rule out impossible actions and accelerate the training process. However, the handcrafted action mask can barely be generalized to unseen domains. In this paper, we propose trainable-action-mask (TAM) which learns from data automatically without handcrafting complicated rules. In our experiments in Cambridge Restaurant domain, TAM requires only 30% of training data, compared with the baseline, to reach the 80% success rate and it also shows robustness to noisy environments. Yen-Chen Wu, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Carl E. Rasmussen |
ICASSP | 3 |
| 2020 | Ensembling geophysical models with Bayesian Neural NetworksabstractEnsembles of geophysical models improve projection accuracy and express uncertainties. We develop a novel data-driven ensembling strategy for combining geophysical models using Bayesian Neural Networks, which infers spatiotemporally varying model weights and bias while accounting for heteroscedastic uncertainties in the observations. This produces more accurate and uncertainty-aware projections without sacrificing interpretability. Applied to the prediction of total column ozone from an ensemble of 15 chemistry-climate models, we find that the Bayesian neural network ensemble (BayNNE) outperforms existing ensembling methods, achieving a 49.4% reduction in RMSE for temporal extrapolation, and a 67.4% reduction in RMSE for polar data voids, compared to a weighted mean. Uncertainty is also well-characterized, with 90.6% of the data points in our extrapolation validation dataset lying within 2 standard deviations and 98.5% within 3 standard deviations. Ushnish Sengupta, Matt Amos, J. Scott Hosking, Carl E. Rasmussen, Matthew P. Juniper, Paul J. Young |
NeurIPS | 4 |
| 2020 | Convergence of Sparse Variational Inference in Gaussian Processes RegressionabstractGaussian processes are distributions over functions that are versatile and mathematically convenient priors in Bayesian modelling. However, their use is often impeded for data with large numbers of observations, $N$, due to the cubic (in $N$) cost of matrix operations used in exact inference. Many solutions have been proposed that rely on $M \ll N$ inducing variables to form an approximation at a cost of $\mathcal{O}\left(NM^2\right)$. While the computational cost appears linear in $N$, the true complexity depends on how $M$ must scale with $N$ to ensure a certain quality of the approximation. In this work, we investigate upper and lower bounds on how $M$ needs to grow with $N$ to ensure high quality approximations. We show that we can make the KL-divergence between the approximate model and the exact posterior arbitrarily small for a Gaussian-noise regression model with $M \ll N$. Specifically, for the popular squared exponential kernel and $D$-dimensional Gaussian distributed covariates, $M = \mathcal{O}((\log N)^D)$ suffice and a method with an overall computational cost of $\mathcal{O}\left(N(\log N)^{2D}(\log \log N)^2\right)$ can be used to perform inference. David R. Burt, Carl E. Rasmussen, Mark van der Wilk |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 2 |
| 2019 | Deep Convolutional Networks as shallow Gaussian Processes
Adrià Garriga-Alonso, Carl E. Rasmussen, Laurence Aitchison |
ICLR (Poster) | 2 |
| 2019 | Rates of Convergence for Sparse Variational Gaussian Process RegressionabstractExcellent variational approximations to Gaussian process posteriors have been developed which avoid the $\mathcal{O}\left(N^3\right)$ scaling with dataset size $N$. They reduce the computational cost to $\mathcal{O}\left(NM^2\right)$, with $M\ll N$ the number of inducing variables, which summarise the process. While the computational cost seems to be linear in $N$, the true complexity of the algorithm depends on how $M$ must increase to ensure a certain quality of approximation. We show that with high probability the KL divergence can be made arbitrarily small by growing $M$ more slowly than $N$. A particular case is that for regression with normally distributed inputs in D-dimensions with the Squared Exponential kernel, $M=\mathcal{O}(\log^D N)$ suffices. Our results show that as datasets grow, Gaussian process posteriors can be approximated cheaply, and provide a concrete rule for how to increase $M$ in continual learning scenarios. David R. Burt, Carl E. Rasmussen, Mark van der Wilk |
ICML | 2 |
| 2019 | Overcoming Mean-Field Approximations in Recurrent Gaussian Process ModelsabstractWe identify a new variational inference scheme for dynamical systems whose transition function is modelled by a Gaussian process. Inference in this setting has either employed computationally intensive MCMC methods, or relied on factorisations of the variational posterior. As we demonstrate in our experiments, the factorisation between latent system states and transition function can lead to a miscalibrated posterior and to learning unnecessarily large noise terms. We eliminate this factorisation by explicitly modelling the dependence between state trajectories and the low-rank representation of our Gaussian process posterior. Samples of the latent states can then be tractably generated by conditioning on this representation. The method we obtain gives better predictive performance and more calibrated estimates of the transition function, yet maintains the same time and space complexities as mean-field methods. Alessandro Davide Ialongo, Mark van der Wilk, James Hensman, Carl E. Rasmussen |
ICML | 4 |
| 2018 | PIPPS: Flexible Model-Based Policy Search Robust to the Curse of ChaosabstractPreviously, the exploding gradient problem has been explained to be central in deep learning and model-based reinforcement learning, because it causes numerical issues and instability in optimization. Our experiments in model-based reinforcement learning imply that the problem is not just a numerical issue, but it may be caused by a fundamental chaos-like nature of long chains of nonlinear computations. Not only do the magnitudes of the gradients become large, the direction of the gradients becomes essentially random. We show that reparameterization gradients suffer from the problem, while likelihood ratio gradients are robust. Using our insights, we develop a model-based policy search framework, Probabilistic Inference for Particle-Based Policy Search (PIPPS), which is easily extensible, and allows for almost arbitrary models and policies, while simultaneously matching the performance of previous data-efficient learning algorithms. Finally, we invent the total propagation algorithm, which efficiently computes a union over all pathwise derivative depths during a single backwards pass, automatically giving greater weight to estimators with lower variance, sometimes improving over reparameterization gradients by $10^6$ times. Paavo Parmas, Carl E. Rasmussen, Jan Peters 0001, Kenji Doya |
ICML | 2 |
| 2017 | Data-Efficient Reinforcement Learning in Continuous State-Action Gaussian-POMDPsabstractWe present a data-efficient reinforcement learning method for continuous state-action systems under significant observation noise. Data-efficient solutions under small noise exist, such as PILCO which learns the cartpole swing-up task in 30s. PILCO evaluates policies by planning state-trajectories using a dynamics model. However, PILCO applies policies to the observed state, therefore planning in observation space. We extend PILCO with filtering to instead plan in belief space, consistent with partially observable Markov decisions process (POMDP) planning. This enables data-efficient learning under significant observation noise, outperforming more naive methods such as post-hoc application of a filter to policies optimised by the original (unfiltered) PILCO algorithm. We test our method on the cartpole swing-up task, which involves nonlinear dynamics and requires nonlinear control. Rowan McAllister, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NIPS | 2 |
| 2017 | Convolutional Gaussian ProcessesabstractWe present a practical way of introducing convolutional structure into Gaussian processes, making them more suited to high-dimensional inputs like images. The main contribution of our work is the construction of an inter-domain inducing point approximation that is well-tailored to the convolutional kernel. This allows us to gain the generalisation benefit of a convolutional kernel, together with fast but accurate posterior inference. We investigate several variations of the convolutional kernel, and apply it to MNIST and CIFAR-10, where we obtain significant improvements over existing Gaussian process models. We also show how the marginal likelihood can be used to find an optimal weighting between convolutional and RBF kernels to further improve performance. This illustration of the usefulness of the marginal likelihood may help automate discovering architectures in larger models. Mark van der Wilk, Carl E. Rasmussen, James Hensman |
NIPS | 2 |
| 2016 | Manifold Gaussian Processes for regressionabstractOff-the-shelf Gaussian Process (GP) covariance functions encode smoothness assumptions on the structure of the function to be modeled. To model complex and non-differentiable functions, these smoothness assumptions are often too restrictive. One way to alleviate this limitation is to find a different representation of the data by introducing a feature space. This feature space is often learned in an unsupervised way, which might lead to data representations that are not useful for the overall regression task. In this paper, we propose Manifold Gaussian Processes, a novel supervised method that jointly learns a transformation of the data into a feature space and a GP regression from the feature space to observed space. The Manifold GP is a full GP and allows to learn data representations, which are useful for the overall regression task. As a proof-of-concept, we evaluate our approach on complex non-smooth functions where standard GPs perform poorly, such as step functions and robotics tasks with contacts. Roberto Calandra, Jan Peters 0001, Carl E. Rasmussen, Marc Peter Deisenroth |
IJCNN | 3 |
| 2016 | Understanding Probabilistic Sparse Gaussian Process ApproximationsabstractGood sparse approximations are essential for practical inference in Gaussian Processes as the computational cost of exact methods is prohibitive for large datasets. The Fully Independent Training Conditional (FITC) and the Variational Free Energy (VFE) approximations are two recent popular methods. Despite superficial similarities, these approximations have surprisingly different theoretical properties and behave differently in practice. We thoroughly investigate the two methods for regression both analytically and through illustrative examples, and draw conclusions to guide practical application. Matthias Bauer 0001, Mark van der Wilk, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NIPS | 3 |
| 2015 | Gaussian Processes for Data-Efficient Learning in Robotics and ControlabstractAutonomous learning has been a promising direction in control and robotics for more than a decade since data-driven learning allows to reduce the amount of engineering knowledge, which is otherwise required. However, autonomous reinforcement learning (RL) approaches typically require many interactions with the system to learn controllers, which is a practical limitation in real systems, such as robots, where many interactions can be impractical and time consuming. To address this problem, current learning approaches typically require task-specific knowledge in form of expert demonstrations, realistic simulators, pre-shaped policies, or specific knowledge about the underlying dynamics. In this paper, we follow a different approach and speed up learning by extracting more information from data. In particular, we learn a probabilistic, non-parametric Gaussian process transition model of the system. By explicitly incorporating model uncertainty into long-term planning and controller learning our approach reduces the effects of model errors, a key problem in model-based learning. Compared to state-of-the art RL our model-based policy search method achieves an unprecedented speed of learning. We demonstrate its applicability to autonomous learning in real robot and control tasks. Marc Peter Deisenroth, Dieter Fox, Carl E. Rasmussen |
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. | 3 |
| 2014 | Policy search for learning robot control using sparse dataabstractIn many complex robot applications, such as grasping and manipulation, it is difficult to program desired task solutions beforehand, as robots are within an uncertain and dynamic environment. In such cases, learning tasks from experience can be a useful alternative. To obtain a sound learning and generalization performance, machine learning, especially, reinforcement learning, usually requires sufficient data. However, in cases where only little data is available for learning, due to system constraints and practical issues, reinforcement learning can act suboptimally. In this paper, we investigate how model-based reinforcement learning, in particular the probabilistic inference for learning control method (Pilco), can be tailored to cope with the case of sparse data to speed up learning. The basic idea is to include further prior knowledge into the learning process. As Pilco is built on the probabilistic Gaussian processes framework, additional system knowledge can be incorporated by defining appropriate prior distributions, e.g. a linear mean Gaussian prior. The resulting Pilco formulation remains in closed form and analytically tractable. The proposed approach is evaluated in simulation as well as on a physical robot, the Festo Robotino XT. For the robot evaluation, we employ the approach for learning an object pick-up task. The results show that by including prior knowledge, policy learning can be sped up in presence of sparse data. Bastian Bischoff, Duy Nguyen-Tuong, Herke van Hoof, Andrew McHutchon, Carl E. Rasmussen, Alois C. Knoll, Jan Peters 0001, Marc Peter Deisenroth |
ICRA | 5 |
| 2014 | Variational Gaussian Process State-Space Models
Roger Frigola, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NIPS | 3 |
| 2014 | Distributed Variational Inference in Sparse Gaussian Process Regression and Latent Variable Models
Yarin Gal, Mark van der Wilk, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NIPS | 3 |
| 2013 | Bayesian Inference and Learning in Gaussian Process State-Space Models with Particle MCMCabstractState-space models are successfully used in many areas of science, engineering and economics to model time series and dynamical systems. We present a fully Bayesian approach to inference and learning in nonlinear nonparametric state-space models. We place a Gaussian process prior over the transition dynamics, resulting in a flexible model able to capture complex dynamical phenomena. However, to enable efficient inference, we marginalize over the dynamics of the model and instead infer directly the joint smoothing distribution through the use of specially tailored Particle Markov Chain Monte Carlo samplers. Once an approximation of the smoothing distribution is computed, the state transition predictive distribution can be formulated analytically. We make use of sparse Gaussian process models to greatly reduce the computational complexity of the approach. Roger Frigola, Fredrik Lindsten, Thomas B. Schön, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NIPS | 4 |
| 2012 | Active Learning of Model Evidence Using Bayesian QuadratureabstractNumerical integration is an key component of many problems in scientific computing, statistical modelling, and machine learning. Bayesian Quadrature is a model-based method for numerical integration which, relative to standard Monte Carlo methods, offers increased sample efficiency and a more robust estimate of the uncertainty in the estimated integral. We propose a novel Bayesian Quadrature approach for numerical integration when the integrand is non-negative, such as the case of computing the marginal likelihood, predictive distribution, or normalising constant of a probabilistic model. Our approach approximately marginalises the quadrature model's hyperparameters in closed form, and introduces an active learning scheme to optimally select function evaluations, as opposed to using Monte Carlo samples. We demonstrate our method on both a number of synthetic benchmarks and a real scientific problem from astronomy. Michael A. Osborne, David Duvenaud, Roman Garnett, Carl E. Rasmussen, Stephen J. Roberts, Zoubin Ghahramani |
NIPS | 4 |
| 2012 | Model based learning of sigma points in unscented Kalman filtering
Ryan D. Turner, Carl E. Rasmussen |
Neurocomputing | 2 |
| 2011 | PILCO: A Model-Based and Data-Efficient Approach to Policy Search
Marc Peter Deisenroth, Carl E. Rasmussen |
ICML | 2 |
| 2011 | Additive Gaussian ProcessesabstractWe introduce a Gaussian process model of functions which are additive. An additive function is one which decomposes into a sum of low-dimensional functions, each depending on only a subset of the input variables. Additive GPs generalize both Generalized Additive Models, and the standard GP models which use squared-exponential kernels. Hyperparameter learning in this model can be seen as Bayesian Hierarchical Kernel Learning (HKL). We introduce an expressive but tractable parameterization of the kernel function, which allows efficient evaluation of all input interaction terms, whose number is exponential in the input dimension. The additional structure discoverable by this model results in increased interpretability, as well as state-of-the-art predictive power in regression tasks. David Duvenaud, Hannes Nickisch, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NIPS | 3 |
| 2011 | Gaussian Process Training with Input NoiseabstractIn standard Gaussian Process regression input locations are assumed to be noise free. We present a simple yet effective GP model for training on input points corrupted by i.i.d. Gaussian noise. To make computations tractable we use a local linear expansion about each input point. This allows the input noise to be recast as output noise proportional to the squared gradient of the GP posterior mean. The input noise variances are inferred from the data as extra hyperparameters. They are trained alongside other hyperparameters by the usual method of maximisation of the marginal likelihood. Training uses an iterative scheme, which alternates between optimising the hyperparameters and calculating the posterior gradient. Analytic predictive moments can then be found for Gaussian distributed test points. We compare our model to others over a range of different regression problems and show that it improves over current methods. Andrew McHutchon, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NIPS | 2 |
| 2010 | Gaussian Process Change Point Models
Yunus Saatci, Ryan D. Turner, Carl E. Rasmussen |
ICML | 3 |
| 2010 | Dirichlet Process Gaussian Mixture Models: Choice of the Base Distribution
Dilan Görür, Carl E. Rasmussen |
J. Comput. Sci. Technol. | 2 |
| 2010 | Sparse Spectrum Gaussian Process Regression
Miguel Lázaro-Gredilla, Joaquin Quiñonero Candela, Carl E. Rasmussen, Aníbal R. Figueiras-Vidal |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 3 |
| 2010 | Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (GPML) Toolbox
Carl E. Rasmussen, Hannes Nickisch |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 1 |
| 2009 | Gaussian process dynamic programming
Marc Peter Deisenroth, Carl E. Rasmussen, Jan Peters 0001 |
Neurocomputing | 2 |
| 2009 | Modeling and Visualizing Uncertainty in Gene Expression Clusters Using Dirichlet Process MixturesabstractAlthough the use of clustering methods has rapidly become one of the standard computational approaches in the literature of microarray gene expression data, little attention has been paid to uncertainty in the results obtained. Dirichlet process mixture (DPM) models provide a nonparametric Bayesian alternative to the bootstrap approach to modeling uncertainty in gene expression clustering. Most previously published applications of Bayesian model-based clustering methods have been to short time series data. In this paper, we present a case study of the application of nonparametric Bayesian clustering methods to the clustering of high-dimensional nontime series gene expression data using full Gaussian covariances. We use the probability that two genes belong to the same cluster in a DPM model as a measure of the similarity of these gene expression profiles. Conversely, this probability can be used to define a dissimilarity measure, which, for the purposes of visualization, can be input to one of the standard linkage algorithms used for hierarchical clustering. Biologically plausible results are obtained from the Rosetta compendium of expression profiles which extend previously published cluster analyses of this data. Carl E. Rasmussen, Bernard J. de la Cruz, Zoubin Ghahramani, David L. Wild |
IEEE ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. | 1 |
| 2008 | Model-Based Reinforcement Learning with Continuous States and Actions
Marc Peter Deisenroth, Carl E. Rasmussen, Jan Peters 0001 |
ESANN | 2 |
| 2007 | The Need for Open Source Software in Machine Learning
Sören Sonnenburg, Mikio L. Braun, Cheng Soon Ong, Samy Bengio, Léon Bottou, Geoff Holmes 0001, Yann LeCun, Klaus-Robert Müller, Fernando Pereira 0003, Carl E. Rasmussen, Gunnar Rätsch, Bernhard Schölkopf, Alexander J. Smola, Pascal Vincent, Jason Weston, Robert C. Williamson |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 10 |
| 2006 | A choice model with infinitely many latent featuresabstractElimination by aspects (EBA) is a probabilistic choice model describing how humans decide between several options. The options from which the choice is made are characterized by binary features and associated weights. For instance, when choosing which mobile phone to buy the features to consider may be: long lasting battery, color screen, etc. Existing methods for inferring the parameters of the model assume pre-specified features. However, the features that lead to the observed choices are not always known. Here, we present a non-parametric Bayesian model to infer the features of the options and the corresponding weights from choice data. We use the Indian buffet process (IBP) as a prior over the features. Inference using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) in conjugate IBP models has been previously described. The main contribution of this paper is an MCMC algorithm for the EBA model that can also be used in inference for other non-conjugate IBP models---this may broaden the use of IBP priors considerably. Dilan Görür, Frank Jäkel, Carl E. Rasmussen |
ICML | 3 |
| 2005 | Healing the relevance vector machine through augmentationabstractThe Relevance Vector Machine (RVM) is a sparse approximate Bayesian kernel method. It provides full predictive distributions for test cases. However, the predictive uncertainties have the unintuitive property, that they get smaller the further you move away from the training cases. We give a thorough analysis. Inspired by the analogy to non-degenerate Gaussian Processes, we suggest augmentation to solve the problem. The purpose of the resulting model, RVM*, is primarily to corroborate the theoretical and experimental analysis. Although RVM* could be used in practical applications, it is no longer a truly sparse model. Experiments show that sparsity comes at the expense of worse predictive. distributions. Carl E. Rasmussen, Joaquin Quiñonero Candela |
ICML | 1 |
| 2005 | Assessing Approximations for Gaussian Process ClassificationabstractGaussian processes are attractive models for probabilistic classification but unfortunately exact inference is analytically intractable. We compare Laplace's method and Expectation Propagation (EP) focusing on marginal likelihood estimates and predictive performance. We explain theoretically and corroborate empirically that EP is superior to Laplace. We also compare to a sophisticated MCMC scheme and show that EP is surprisingly accurate. In recent years models based on Gaussian process (GP) priors have attracted much attention in the machine learning community. Whereas inference in the GP regression model with Gaussian noise can be done analytically, probabilistic classification using GPs is analytically intractable. Several approaches to approximate Bayesian inference have been suggested, including Laplace's approximation, Expectation Propagation (EP), variational approximations and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling, some of these in conjunction with generalisation bounds, online learning schemes and sparse approximations. Despite the abundance of recent work on probabilistic GP classifiers, most experimental studies provide only anecdotal evidence, and no clear picture has yet emerged, as to when and why which algorithm should be preferred. Thus, from a practitioners point of view probabilistic GP classification remains a jungle. In this paper, we set out to understand and compare two of the most wide-spread approximations: Laplace's method and Expectation Propagation (EP). We also compare to a sophisticated, but computationally demanding MCMC scheme to examine how close the approximations are to ground truth. We examine two aspects of the approximation schemes: Firstly the accuracy of approximations to the marginal likelihood which is of central importance for model selection and model comparison. In any practical application of GPs in classification (usually multiple) parameters of the covariance function (hyperparameters) have to be handled. Bayesian model selection provides a consistent framework for setting such parameters. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the accuracy of the marginal likelihood approximations as a function of the hyperparameters, in order to assess the practical usefulness of the approach Secondly, we need to assess the quality of the approximate probabilistic predictions. In the past, the probabilistic nature of the GP predictions have not received much attention, the focus being mostly on classification error rates. This unfortunate state of affairs is caused primarily by typical benchmarking problems being considered outside of a realistic context. The ability of a classifier to produce class probabilities or confidences, have obvious relevance in most areas of application, eg. medical diagnosis. We evaluate the predictive distributions of the approximate methods, and compare to the MCMC gold standard. 1 The Gaussian Process Model for Binary Classification Let y {-1, 1} denote the class label of an input x. Gaussian process classification (GPC) is discriminative in modelling p(y |x) for given x by a Bernoulli distribution. The probability of success p(y = 1|x) is related to an unconstrained latent function f (x) which is mapped to the unit interval by a sigmoid transformation, eg. the logit or the probit. For reasons of analytic convenience we exclusively use the probit model p(y = 1|x) = (f (x)), where denotes the cumulative density function of the standard Normal distribution. In the GPC model Bayesian inference is performed about the latent function f in the light of observed data D = {(yi , xi )|i = 1, . . . , m}. Let fi = f (xi ) and f = [f1 , . . . , fm ] e shorthand for the values of the latent function and y = [y1 , . . . , ym ] and X = [x1 , . . . , xm ] collect the class labels and inputs respectively. Given the latent function the class labels are independent Bernoulli variables, so the joint likelihood factories: b Malte Kuss, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NIPS | 2 |
| 2005 | A Unifying View of Sparse Approximate Gaussian Process RegressionabstractWe provide a new unifying view, including all existing proper probabilistic sparse approximations for Gaussian process regression. Our approach relies on expressing the effective prior which the methods are using. This allows new insights to be gained, and highlights the relationship between existing methods. It also allows for a clear theoretically justified ranking of the closeness of the known approximations to the corresponding full GPs. Finally we point directly to designs of new better sparse approximations, combining the best of the existing strategies, within attractive computational constraints. Joaquin Quiñonero Candela, Carl E. Rasmussen |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 2 |
| 2005 | Assessing Approximate Inference for Binary Gaussian Process ClassificationabstractGaussian process priors can be used to define flexible, probabilistic classification models. Unfortunately exact Bayesian inference is analytically intractable and various approximation techniques have been proposed. In this work we review and compare Laplace's method and Expectation Propagation for approximate Bayesian inference in the binary Gaussian process classification model. We present a comprehensive comparison of the approximations, their predictive performance and marginal likelihood estimates to results obtained by MCMC sampling. We explain theoretically and corroborate empirically the advantages of Expectation Propagation compared to Laplace's method. Malte Kuss, Carl E. Rasmussen |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 2 |
| 2003 | Propagation of uncertainty in Bayesian kernel models - application to multiple-step ahead forecastingabstractThe object of Bayesian modelling is predictive distribution, which, in a forecasting scenario, enables evaluation of forecasted values and their uncertainties. We focus on reliably estimating the predictive mean and variance of forecasted values using Bayesian kernel based models such as the Gaussian process and the relevance vector machine. We derive novel analytic expressions for the predictive mean and variance for Gaussian kernel shapes under the assumption of a Gaussian input distribution in the static case, and of a recursive Gaussian predictive density in iterative forecasting. The capability of the method is demonstrated for forecasting of time-series and compared to approximate methods. Joaquin Quiñonero Candela, Agathe Girard, Jan Larsen, Carl E. Rasmussen |
ICASSP (2) | 4 |
| 2003 | Prediction on Spike Data Using Kernel AlgorithmsabstractWe report and compare the performance of different learning algorithms based on data from cortical recordings. The task is to predict the orienta- tion of visual stimuli from the activity of a population of simultaneously recorded neurons. We compare several ways of improving the coding of the input (i.e., the spike data) as well as of the output (i.e., the orienta- tion), and report the results obtained using different kernel algorithms. Jan Eichhorn, Andreas S. Tolias, Alexander Zien, Malte Kuss, Carl E. Rasmussen, Jason Weston, Nikos K. Logothetis, Bernhard Schölkopf |
NIPS | 5 |
| 2003 | Gaussian Processes in Reinforcement LearningabstractWe exploit some useful properties of Gaussian process (GP) regression models for reinforcement learning in continuous state spaces and dis- crete time. We demonstrate how the GP model allows evaluation of the value function in closed form. The resulting policy iteration algorithm is demonstrated on a simple problem with a two dimensional state space. Further, we speculate that the intrinsic ability of GP models to charac- terise distributions of functions would allow the method to capture entire distributions over future values instead of merely their expectation, which has traditionally been the focus of much of reinforcement learning. Carl E. Rasmussen, Malte Kuss |
NIPS | 1 |
| 2003 | Warped Gaussian ProcessesabstractWe generalise the Gaussian process (GP) framework for regression by learning a nonlinear transformation of the GP outputs. This allows for non-Gaussian processes and non-Gaussian noise. The learning algo- rithm chooses a nonlinear transformation such that transformed data is well-modelled by a GP. This can be seen as including a preprocessing transformation as an integral part of the probabilistic modelling problem, rather than as an ad-hoc step. We demonstrate on several real regression problems that learning the transformation can lead to significantly better performance than using a regular GP, or a GP with a fixed transformation. Edward Lloyd Snelson, Carl E. Rasmussen, Zoubin Ghahramani |
NIPS | 2 |
| 2002 | Gaussian Process Priors with Uncertain Inputs - Application to Multiple-Step Ahead Time Series ForecastingabstractWe consider the problem of multi-step ahead prediction in time series analysis using the non-parametric Gaussian process model. -step ahead forecasting of a discrete-time non-linear dynamic system can be per- formed by doing repeated one-step ahead predictions. For a state-space at time model of the form is based on the point estimates of the previous outputs. In this pa- per, we show how, using an analytical Gaussian approximation, we can formally incorporate the uncertainty about intermediate regressor values, thus updating the uncertainty on the current prediction. Agathe Girard, Carl E. Rasmussen, Joaquin Quiñonero Candela, Roderick Murray-Smith |
NIPS | 2 |
| 2002 | Bayesian Monte CarloabstractWe investigate Bayesian alternatives to classical Monte Carlo methods for evaluating integrals. Bayesian Monte Carlo (BMC) allows the in- corporation of prior knowledge, such as smoothness of the integrand, into the estimation. In a simple problem we show that this outperforms any classical importance sampling method. We also attempt more chal- lenging multidimensional integrals involved in computing marginal like- lihoods of statistical models (a.k.a. partition functions and model evi- dences). We find that Bayesian Monte Carlo outperformed Annealed Importance Sampling, although for very high dimensional problems or problems with massive multimodality BMC may be less adequate. One advantage of the Bayesian approach to Monte Carlo is that samples can be drawn from any distribution. This allows for the possibility of active design of sample points so as to maximise information gain. Carl E. Rasmussen, Zoubin Ghahramani |
NIPS | 1 |
| 2002 | Derivative Observations in Gaussian Process Models of Dynamic SystemsabstractGaussian processes provide an approach to nonparametric modelling which allows a straightforward combination of function and derivative observations in an empirical model. This is of particular importance in identification of nonlinear dynamic systems from experimental data. 1) It allows us to combine derivative information, and associated uncertainty with normal function observations into the learning and inference pro- cess. This derivative information can be in the form of priors specified by an expert or identified from perturbation data close to equilibrium. 2) It allows a seamless fusion of multiple local linear models in a consis- tent manner, inferring consistent models and ensuring that integrability constraints are met. 3) It improves dramatically the computational ef- ficiency of Gaussian process models for dynamic system identification, by summarising large quantities of near-equilibrium data by a handful of linearisations, reducing the training set size – traditionally a problem for Gaussian process models. E. Solak, Roderick Murray-Smith, William E. Leithead, Douglas J. Leith, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NIPS | 5 |
| 2001 | The Infinite Hidden Markov ModelabstractWe show that it is possible to extend hidden Markov models to have a countably infinite number of hidden states. By using the theory of Dirichlet processes we can implicitly integrate out the infinitely many transition parameters, leaving only three hyperparameters which can be learned from data. These three hyperparameters define a hierarchical Dirichlet process capable of capturing a rich set of transition dynamics. The three hyperparameters control the time scale of the dynamics, the sparsity of the underlying state-transition matrix, and the expected num- ber of distinct hidden states in a finite sequence. In this framework it is also natural to allow the alphabet of emitted symbols to be infinite— consider, for example, symbols being possible words appearing in En- glish text. Matthew J. Beal, Zoubin Ghahramani, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NIPS | 3 |
| 2001 | Infinite Mixtures of Gaussian Process ExpertsabstractWe present an extension to the Mixture of Experts (ME) model, where the individual experts are Gaussian Process (GP) regression models. Us- ing an input-dependent adaptation of the Dirichlet Process, we imple- ment a gating network for an infinite number of Experts. Inference in this model may be done efficiently using a Markov Chain relying on Gibbs sampling. The model allows the effective covariance function to vary with the inputs, and may handle large datasets – thus potentially over- coming two of the biggest hurdles with GP models. Simulations show the viability of this approach. Carl E. Rasmussen, Zoubin Ghahramani |
NIPS | 1 |
| 2000 | Occam's RazorabstractThe Bayesian paradigm apparently only sometimes gives rise to Occam's Razor; at other times very large models perform well. We give simple examples of both kinds of behaviour. The two views are reconciled when measuring complexity of functions, rather than of the machinery used to implement them. We analyze the complexity of functions for some linear in the parameter models that are equivalent to Gaussian Processes, and always find Occam's Razor at work. Carl E. Rasmussen, Zoubin Ghahramani |
NIPS | 1 |
| 1999 | Bayesian Modelling of fMRI lime Series
Pedro A. d. F. R. Højen-Sørensen, Lars Kai Hansen, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NIPS | 3 |
| 1999 | The Infinite Gaussian Mixture Model
Carl E. Rasmussen |
NIPS | 1 |
| 1995 | A Practical Monte Carlo Implementation of Bayesian Learning
Carl E. Rasmussen |
NIPS | 1 |
| 1995 | Gaussian Processes for Regression
Christopher K. I. Williams, Carl E. Rasmussen |
NIPS | 2 |
| 1994 | Pruning from Adaptive RegularizationabstractInspired by the recent upsurge of interest in Bayesian methods we consider adaptive regularization. A generalization based scheme for adaptation of regularization parameters is introduced and compared to Bayesian regularization. We show that pruning arises naturally within both adaptive regularization schemes. As model example we have chosen the simplest possible: estimating the mean of a random variable with known variance. Marked similarities are found between the two methods in that they both involve a “noise limit,” below which they regularize with infinite weight decay, i.e., they prune. However, pruning is not always beneficial. We show explicitly that both methods in some cases may increase the generalization error. This corresponds to situations where the underlying assumptions of the regularizer are poorly matched to the environment. Lars Kai Hansen, Carl E. Rasmussen |
Neural Comput. | 2 |