Christopher R. Genovese

dblp:89/5738 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 2 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
4 papers
Learning theory · 48% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 17% Optimization for machine learning · 11%
Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Algorithms and data structures · 41% Computational geometry · 41% Mathematical optimization · 18%

Topics — the 14 heaviest of 16, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning theory
statistical estimation
0.322012
Minimax Manifold Estimation · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2012
A Comparison of the Lasso and Marginal Regression · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2012
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
density estimation
0.212015
Optimal Ridge Detection using Coverage Risk · NIPS 2015
Machine learning › Learning theory
high-dimensional regression
0.112012
A Comparison of the Lasso and Marginal Regression · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2012
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › regularized risk minimization › regularized regression
lasso
0.112012
A Comparison of the Lasso and Marginal Regression · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2012
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › dimensionality reduction › manifold learning
manifold fitting
0.112012
Minimax Manifold Estimation · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2012
Machine learning › Learning theory › statistical estimation › minimax estimation
minimax rates
0.112012
Minimax Manifold Estimation · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2012
Computational geometry › geometric modeling and processing › point cloud analysis › geometric reconstruction
manifold estimation
0.112012
Minimax Manifold Estimation · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2012
Algorithms and data structures › numerical linear algebra › dimensionality reduction › nonlinear dimensionality reduction
manifold learning
0.112012
Minimax Manifold Estimation · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2012
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
active learning
0.112005
Active Learning For Identifying Function Threshold Boundaries · NIPS 2005
Machine learning › Learning theory › statistical estimation › confidence set construction
confidence intervals
0.112005
Active Learning For Identifying Function Threshold Boundaries · NIPS 2005
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › active learning
query selection
0.112005
Active Learning For Identifying Function Threshold Boundaries · NIPS 2005
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation
0.112005
Active Learning For Identifying Function Threshold Boundaries · NIPS 2005
Computational science and engineering › cosmology
cosmological parameter estimation
0.012005
Active Learning For Identifying Function Threshold Boundaries · NIPS 2005
Computational science and engineering
cosmology
0.012005
Active Learning For Identifying Function Threshold Boundaries · NIPS 2005

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

coverage risk estimator · 0.4convergence rate analysis · 0.4minimax analysis · 0.3manifold estimation · 0.3prediction error · 0.1marginal regression · 0.1lasso · 0.1variance-based selection · 0.1misclassification-rate selection · 0.1entropy-based selection · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Optimal Ridge Detection using Coverage Risk
abstract
We introduce the concept of coverage risk as an error measure for density ridge estimation.The coverage risk generalizes the mean integrated square error to set estimation.We propose two risk estimators for the coverage risk and we show that we can select tuning parameters by minimizing the estimated risk.We study the rate of convergence for coverage risk and prove consistency of the risk estimators.We apply our method to three simulated datasets and to cosmology data.In all the examples, the proposed method successfully recover the underlying density structure.
Yen-Chi Chen, Christopher R. Genovese, Shirley Ho, Larry A. Wasserman
NIPS2
2012 A Comparison of the Lasso and Marginal Regression
Christopher R. Genovese, Jiashun Jin, Larry A. Wasserman, Zhigang Yao
J. Mach. Learn. Res.1
2012 Minimax Manifold Estimation
Christopher R. Genovese, Marco Perone-Pacifico, Isabella Verdinelli, Larry A. Wasserman
J. Mach. Learn. Res.1
2005 Active Learning For Identifying Function Threshold Boundaries
abstract
We present an efficient algorithm to actively select queries for learning the boundaries separating a function domain into regions where the func- tion is above and below a given threshold. We develop experiment selec- tion methods based on entropy, misclassification rate, variance, and their combinations, and show how they perform on a number of data sets. We then show how these algorithms are used to determine simultaneously valid 1 − α confidence intervals for seven cosmological parameters. Ex- perimentation shows that the algorithm reduces the computation neces- sary for the parameter estimation problem by an order of magnitude.
Brent Bryan, Jeff G. Schneider, Robert Nichol, Christopher J. Miller, Christopher R. Genovese, Larry A. Wasserman
NIPS5
2001 A comparison of linear and nonlinear statistical techniques in performance attribution
abstract
Performance attribution is usually conducted under the linear framework of multifactor models. Although commonly used by practitioners in finance, linear multifactor models are known to be less than satisfactory in many situations. After a brief survey of nonlinear methods, nonlinear statistical techniques are applied to performance attribution of a portfolio constructed from a fixed universe of stocks using factors derived from some commonly used cross sectional linear multifactor models. By rebalancing this portfolio monthly, the cumulative returns for procedures based on standard linear multifactor model and three nonlinear techniques-model selection, additive models, and neural networks-are calculated and compared. It is found that the first two nonlinear techniques, especially in combination, outperform the standard linear model. The results in the neural-network case are inconclusive because of the great variety of possible models. Although these methods are more complicated and may require some tuning, toolboxes are developed and suggestions on calibration are proposed. This paper demonstrates the usefulness of modern nonlinear statistical techniques in performance attribution.
Ngai Hang Chan, Christopher R. Genovese
IEEE Trans. Neural Networks2
1997 Online Analysis of Functional MRI Datasets on Parallel Platforms
Nigel H. Goddard, Greg Hood, Jonathan D. Cohen 0003, William F. Eddy, Christopher R. Genovese, Douglas C. Noll, Leigh E. Nystrom
J. Supercomput.5