EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Leah F. South
dblp:131/0019
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0002-5646-2963ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Security and privacy · 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
1 paper |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, 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 |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The Polynomial Stein Discrepancy for Assessing Moment Convergence · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › model criticism
sample quality assessment |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The Polynomial Stein Discrepancy for Assessing Moment Convergence · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › divergence measure
stein discrepancy |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The Polynomial Stein Discrepancy for Assessing Moment Convergence · ICML 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
stochastic gradient langevin dynamics · 0.9goodness-of-fit test · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | The Polynomial Stein Discrepancy for Assessing Moment ConvergenceabstractWe propose a novel method for measuring the discrepancy between a set of samples and a desired posterior distribution for Bayesian inference. Classical methods for assessing sample quality like the effective sample size are not appropriate for scalable Bayesian sampling algorithms, such as stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics, that are asymptotically biased. Instead, the gold standard is to use the kernel Stein Discrepancy (KSD), which is itself not scalable given its quadratic cost in the number of samples. The KSD and its faster extensions also typically suffer from the curse-of-dimensionality and can require extensive tuning. To address these limitations, we develop the polynomial Stein discrepancy (PSD) and an associated goodness-of-fit test. While the new test is not fully convergence-determining, we prove that it detects differences in the first $r$ moments for Gaussian targets. We empirically show that the test has higher power than its competitors in several examples, and at a lower computational cost. Finally, we demonstrate that the PSD can assist practitioners to select hyper-parameters of Bayesian sampling algorithms more efficiently than competitors. Narayan Srinivasan, Matthew Sutton, Christopher C. Drovandi, Leah F. South |
ICML | 4 |
| 2013 | Count-Min Sketches for Estimating Password Frequency within Hamming Distance Two
Leah F. South, Douglas Stebila |
ACISP | 1 |