Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Alex Beatson
dblp:157/6559
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
3as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 3 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
6 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 52% Deep learning architectures and training · 14% Trustworthy machine learning · 11% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
2 papers |
Computational science and engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 16 heaviest of 18, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
variational inference |
0.5 | 2 | 2020 | SUMO: Unbiased Estimation of Log Marginal Probability for Latent Variable Models · ICLR 2020 Efficient optimization of loops and limits with randomized telescoping sums · ICML 2019 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
automatic differentiation |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Randomized Automatic Differentiation · ICLR 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models
latent variable model |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | SUMO: Unbiased Estimation of Log Marginal Probability for Latent Variable Models · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › bayesian model selection
marginal likelihood estimation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | SUMO: Unbiased Estimation of Log Marginal Probability for Latent Variable Models · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
structured prediction |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Learning Composable Energy Surrogates for PDE Order Reduction · NeurIPS 2020 |
Computational science and engineering
finite element analysis |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Amortized Finite Element Analysis for Fast PDE-Constrained Optimization · ICML 2020 |
Computational science and engineering › numerical analysis
model reduction |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Learning Composable Energy Surrogates for PDE Order Reduction · NeurIPS 2020 |
Computational science and engineering › partial differential equations
partial differential equation simulation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Learning Composable Energy Surrogates for PDE Order Reduction · NeurIPS 2020 |
Computational science and engineering › scientific machine learning
surrogate modeling |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Learning Composable Energy Surrogates for PDE Order Reduction · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
bayesian meta-learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Amortized Bayesian Meta-Learning · ICLR (Poster) 2019 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
meta-learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Amortized Bayesian Meta-Learning · ICLR (Poster) 2019 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › gradient estimation
stochastic gradient estimation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Efficient optimization of loops and limits with randomized telescoping sums · ICML 2019 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial robustness |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Blind Attacks on Machine Learners · NIPS 2016 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
data poisoning |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Blind Attacks on Machine Learners · NIPS 2016 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference
amortized inference |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Amortized Bayesian Meta-Learning · ICLR (Poster) 2019 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › recurrent neural network
recurrent neural network training |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Efficient optimization of loops and limits with randomized telescoping sums · ICML 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
neural network · 1.3finite element analysis · 0.9dataset aggregation · 0.9stochastic approximation · 0.5unbiased estimation · 0.4stochastic optimization · 0.4potential energy minimization · 0.4adjoint method · 0.4randomized telescope gradient estimator · 0.4amortized variational inference · 0.4adaptive tuning · 0.4minimax analysis · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Randomized Automatic Differentiation
Deniz Oktay, Nick McGreivy, Joshua Aduol, Alex Beatson, Ryan P. Adams |
ICLR | 4 |
| 2020 | SUMO: Unbiased Estimation of Log Marginal Probability for Latent Variable Models
Yucen Luo, Alex Beatson, Mohammad Norouzi 0002, Jun Zhu 0001, David Duvenaud, Ryan P. Adams, Ricky T. Q. Chen |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2020 | Amortized Finite Element Analysis for Fast PDE-Constrained OptimizationabstractOptimizing the parameters of partial differential equations (PDEs), i.e., PDE-constrained optimization (PDE-CO), allows us to model natural systems from observations or perform rational design of structures with complicated mechanical, thermal, or electromagnetic properties. However, PDE-CO is often computationally prohibitive due to the need to solve the PDE—typically via finite element analysis (FEA)—at each step of the optimization procedure. In this paper we propose amortized finite element analysis (AmorFEA), in which a neural network learns to produce accurate PDE solutions, while preserving many of the advantages of traditional finite element methods. This network is trained to directly minimize the potential energy from which the PDE and finite element method are derived, avoiding the need to generate costly supervised training data by solving PDEs with traditional FEA. As FEA is a variational procedure, AmorFEA is a direct analogue to popular amortized inference approaches in latent variable models, with the finite element basis acting as the variational family. AmorFEA can perform PDE-CO without the need to repeatedly solve the associated PDE, accelerating optimization when compared to a traditional workflow using FEA and the adjoint method. Tianju Xue, Alex Beatson, Sigrid Adriaenssens, Ryan P. Adams |
ICML | 2 |
| 2020 | Learning Composable Energy Surrogates for PDE Order ReductionabstractMeta-materials are an important emerging class of engineered materials in which complex macroscopic behaviour--whether electromagnetic, thermal, or mechanical--arises from modular substructure. Simulation and optimization of these materials are computationally challenging, as rich substructures necessitate high-fidelity finite element meshes to solve the governing PDEs. To address this, we leverage parametric modular structure to learn component-level surrogates, enabling cheaper high-fidelity simulation. We use a neural network to model the stored potential energy in a component given boundary conditions. This yields a structured prediction task: macroscopic behavior is determined by the minimizer of the system's total potential energy, which can be approximated by composing these surrogate models. Composable energy surrogates thus permit simulation in the reduced basis of component boundaries. Costly ground-truth simulation of the full structure is avoided, as training data are generated by performing finite element analysis of individual components. Using dataset aggregation to choose training data allows us to learn energy surrogates which produce accurate macroscopic behavior when composed, accelerating simulation of parametric meta-materials. Alex Beatson, Jordan T. Ash, Geoffrey Roeder, Tianju Xue, Ryan P. Adams |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2019 | Amortized Bayesian Meta-Learning
Sachin Ravi, Alex Beatson |
ICLR (Poster) | 2 |
| 2019 | Efficient optimization of loops and limits with randomized telescoping sumsabstractWe consider optimization problems in which the objective requires an inner loop with many steps or is the limit of a sequence of increasingly costly approximations. Meta-learning, training recurrent neural networks, and optimization of the solutions to differential equations are all examples of optimization problems with this character. In such problems, it can be expensive to compute the objective function value and its gradient, but truncating the loop or using less accurate approximations can induce biases that damage the overall solution. We propose randomized telescope (RT) gradient estimators, which represent the objective as the sum of a telescoping series and sample linear combinations of terms to provide cheap unbiased gradient estimates. We identify conditions under which RT estimators achieve optimization convergence rates independent of the length of the loop or the required accuracy of the approximation. We also derive a method for tuning RT estimators online to maximize a lower bound on the expected decrease in loss per unit of computation. We evaluate our adaptive RT estimators on a range of applications including meta-optimization of learning rates, variational inference of ODE parameters, and training an LSTM to model long sequences. Alex Beatson, Ryan P. Adams |
ICML | 1 |
| 2016 | Blind Attacks on Machine LearnersabstractThe importance of studying the robustness of learners to malicious data is well established. While much work has been done establishing both robust estimators and effective data injection attacks when the attacker is omniscient, the ability of an attacker to provably harm learning while having access to little information is largely unstudied. We study the potential of a “blind attacker” to provably limit a learner’s performance by data injection attack without observing the learner’s training set or any parameter of the distribution from which it is drawn. We provide examples of simple yet effective attacks in two settings: firstly, where an “informed learner” knows the strategy chosen by the attacker, and secondly, where a “blind learner” knows only the proportion of malicious data and some family to which the malicious distribution chosen by the attacker belongs. For each attack, we analyze minimax rates of convergence and establish lower bounds on the learner’s minimax risk, exhibiting limits on a learner’s ability to learn under data injection attack even when the attacker is “blind”. Alex Beatson, Zhaoran Wang 0001, Han Liu 0001 |
NIPS | 1 |