EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
David Janz
dblp:190/7685
· DBLP profile ↗
13ranked-venue papers
6as first author
9since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 13 · 6 first-author · 9 since 2021Systems, 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
9 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 37% Reinforcement learning · 34% Learning theory · 15% | |
| Theoretical computer science
3 papers |
Mathematical optimization · 50% Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 30% Approximation and online algorithms · 20% |
Topics — the 27 heaviest of 28, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Mathematical optimization › online optimization
regret bounds |
1.8 | 2 | 2026 | Sharp analysis of linear ensemble sampling · COLT 2026 Ensemble sampling for linear bandits: small ensembles suffice · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes
gaussian process |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | Stochastic Gradient Descent for Gaussian Processes Done Right · ICLR 2024 Sampling from Gaussian Process Posteriors using Stochastic Gradient Descent · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
bandit |
1.3 | 2 | 2026 | Sharp analysis of linear ensemble sampling · COLT 2026 Eluder dimension: localise it! · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › sampling
posterior sampling |
1.0 | 2 | 2023 | Sampling from Gaussian Process Posteriors using Stochastic Gradient Descent · NeurIPS 2023 Successor Uncertainties: Exploration and Uncertainty in Temporal Difference Learning · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › bandit
ensemble sampling |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Sharp analysis of linear ensemble sampling · COLT 2026 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › bandit
linear bandits |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Sharp analysis of linear ensemble sampling · COLT 2026 |
Approximation and online algorithms
online algorithms |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Sharp analysis of linear ensemble sampling · COLT 2026 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning
eluder dimension |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Eluder dimension: localise it! · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › regret minimization
first-order regret bounds |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Eluder dimension: localise it! · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning
regret bounds |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Eluder dimension: localise it! · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › approximate bayesian inference
linearized laplace approximation |
0.8 | 2 | 2023 | Adapting the Linearised Laplace Model Evidence for Modern Deep Learning · ICML 2022 Sampling-based inference for large linear models, with application to linearised Laplace · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process
gaussian process regression |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Stochastic Gradient Descent for Gaussian Processes Done Right · ICLR 2024 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › multi-armed bandit
linear bandits |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Ensemble sampling for linear bandits: small ensembles suffice · NeurIPS 2024 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
multi-armed bandit |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Ensemble sampling for linear bandits: small ensembles suffice · NeurIPS 2024 |
Mathematical optimization › stochastic optimization › stochastic gradient methods
stochastic gradient descent |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Stochastic Gradient Descent for Gaussian Processes Done Right · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
bayesian inference |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Sampling-based inference for large linear models, with application to linearised Laplace · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
implicit bias |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Sampling from Gaussian Process Posteriors using Stochastic Gradient Descent · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › sampling
sampling-based inference |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Sampling-based inference for large linear models, with application to linearised Laplace · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
stochastic gradient descent |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Sampling from Gaussian Process Posteriors using Stochastic Gradient Descent · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models
bayesian deep learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Adapting the Linearised Laplace Model Evidence for Modern Deep Learning · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Adapting the Linearised Laplace Model Evidence for Modern Deep Learning · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › exploration
exploration-exploitation tradeoff |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Successor Uncertainties: Exploration and Uncertainty in Temporal Difference Learning · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › exploration
randomized value functions |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Successor Uncertainties: Exploration and Uncertainty in Temporal Difference Learning · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
value function |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Successor Uncertainties: Exploration and Uncertainty in Temporal Difference Learning · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling › generative model › discrete generative model
discrete structure generation |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Learning a Generative Model for Validity in Complex Discrete Structures · ICLR (Poster) 2018 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph generation |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Learning a Generative Model for Validity in Complex Discrete Structures · ICLR (Poster) 2018 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-free reinforcement learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Learning to Drive in a Day · ICRA 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
thompson sampling · 2.8brownian motion analysis · 2.0variational approximation · 1.5stochastic dual descent · 1.5preconditioned conjugate gradient · 1.5generalized linear model · 0.9eluder dimension localization · 0.9ensemble sampling · 0.8sampling-based inference · 0.7linearised laplace · 0.7inducing points · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Sharp analysis of linear ensemble samplingabstractWe analyse linear ensemble sampling (ES) with standard Gaussian perturbations in stochastic linear bandits. We show that for ensemble size $m=\Theta(d\log n)$, ES attains $\tilde O(d^{3/2}\sqrt n)$ high-probability regret, closing the gap to the Thompson sampling benchmark while keeping computation comparable. The proof brings a new perspective on randomized exploration in linear bandits by reducing the analysis to a time-uniform exceedance problem for $m$ independent Brownian motions. This continuous-time lens appears particularly natural here: it yields an exact representation of the relevant discrete-time processes, and we do not know another route to a sharp ES bound. David Janz, Arya Akhavan, Csaba Szepesvári |
COLT | 1 |
| 2025 | When and why randomised exploration works (in linear bandits)abstractWe provide an approach for the analysis of randomised exploration algorithms like Thompson sampling that does not rely on forced optimism or posterior inflation. With this, we demonstrate that in the $d$-dimensional linear bandit setting, when the action space is smooth and strongly convex, randomised exploration algorithms enjoy an $n$-step regret bound of the order $O(d\sqrt{n} \log(n))$. Notably, this shows for the first time that there exist non-trivial linear bandit settings where Thompson sampling can achieve optimal dimension dependence in the regret. Marc Abeille, David Janz, Ciara Pike-Burke |
ALT | 2 |
| 2025 | Eluder dimension: localise it!abstractWe establish a lower bound on the eluder dimension in generalised linear model classes, showing that standard eluder dimension-based analysis cannot lead to first-order regret bounds. To address this, we introduce a localisation method for the eluder dimension; our analysis immediately recovers and improves on classic results for Bernoulli bandits, and allows for the first genuine first-order bounds for finite-horizon reinforcement learning tasks with bounded cumulative returns. Alireza Bakhtiari, Alex Ayoub, Samuel Robertson, David Janz, Csaba Szepesvári |
NeurIPS | 4 |
| 2024 | Exploration via linearly perturbed loss minimisationabstractWe introduce \emph{exploration via linear loss perturbations} (EVILL), a randomised exploration method for structured stochastic bandit problems that works by solving for the minimiser of a linearly perturbed regularised negative log-likelihood function. We show that, for the case of generalised linear bandits, EVILL reduces to perturbed history exploration (PHE), a method where exploration is done by training on randomly perturbed rewards. In doing so, we provide a simple and clean explanation of when and why random reward perturbations give rise to good bandit algorithms. We propose data-dependent perturbations not present in previous PHE-type methods that allow EVILL to match the performance of Thompson-sampling-style parameter-perturbation methods, both in theory and in practice. Moreover, we show an example outside generalised linear bandits where PHE leads to inconsistent estimates, and thus linear regret, while EVILL remains performant. Like PHE, EVILL can be implemented in just a few lines of code. David Janz, Alex Ayoub, Csaba Szepesvári |
AISTATS | 1 |
| 2024 | Stochastic Gradient Descent for Gaussian Processes Done RightabstractAs is well known, both sampling from the posterior and computing the mean of the posterior in Gaussian process regression reduces to solving a large linear system of equations. We study the use of stochastic gradient descent for solving this linear system, and show that when done right---by which we mean using specific insights from the optimisation and kernel communities---stochastic gradient descent is highly effective. To that end, we introduce a particularly simple stochastic dual descent algorithm, explain its design in an intuitive manner and illustrate the design choices through a series of ablation studies. Further experiments demonstrate that our new method is highly competitive. In particular, our evaluations on the UCI regression tasks and on Bayesian optimisation set our approach apart from preconditioned conjugate gradients and variational Gaussian process approximations. Moreover, our method places Gaussian process regression on par with state-of-the-art graph neural networks for molecular binding affinity prediction. Jihao Andreas Lin, Shreyas Padhy, Javier Antorán, Austin Tripp, Alexander Terenin, Csaba Szepesvári, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato, David Janz |
ICLR | 8 |
| 2024 | Ensemble sampling for linear bandits: small ensembles sufficeabstractWe provide the first useful and rigorous analysis of ensemble sampling for the stochastic linear bandit setting. In particular, we show that, under standard assumptions, for a $d$-dimensional stochastic linear bandit with an interaction horizon $T$, ensemble sampling with an ensemble of size of order $\smash{d \log T}$ incurs regret at most of the order $\smash{(d \log T)^{5/2} \sqrt{T}}$. Ours is the first result in any structured setting not to require the size of the ensemble to scale linearly with $T$---which defeats the purpose of ensemble sampling---while obtaining near $\smash{\sqrt{T}}$ order regret. Our result is also the first to allow for infinite action sets. David Janz, Alexander E. Litvak, Csaba Szepesvári |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2023 | Sampling-based inference for large linear models, with application to linearised Laplace
Javier Antorán, Shreyas Padhy, Riccardo Barbano, Eric T. Nalisnick, David Janz, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato |
ICLR | 5 |
| 2023 | Sampling from Gaussian Process Posteriors using Stochastic Gradient DescentabstractGaussian processes are a powerful framework for quantifying uncertainty and for sequential decision-making but are limited by the requirement of solving linear systems. In general, this has a cubic cost in dataset size and is sensitive to conditioning. We explore stochastic gradient algorithms as a computationally efficient method of approximately solving these linear systems: we develop low-variance optimization objectives for sampling from the posterior and extend these to inducing points. Counterintuitively, stochastic gradient descent often produces accurate predictions, even in cases where it does not converge quickly to the optimum. We explain this through a spectral characterization of the implicit bias from non-convergence. We show that stochastic gradient descent produces predictive distributions close to the true posterior both in regions with sufficient data coverage, and in regions sufficiently far away from the data. Experimentally, stochastic gradient descent achieves state-of-the-art performance on sufficiently large-scale or ill-conditioned regression tasks. Its uncertainty estimates match the performance of significantly more expensive baselines on a large-scale Bayesian~optimization~task. Jihao Andreas Lin, Javier Antorán, Shreyas Padhy, David Janz, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato, Alexander Terenin |
NeurIPS | 4 |
| 2022 | Adapting the Linearised Laplace Model Evidence for Modern Deep LearningabstractThe linearised Laplace method for estimating model uncertainty has received renewed attention in the Bayesian deep learning community. The method provides reliable error bars and admits a closed-form expression for the model evidence, allowing for scalable selection of model hyperparameters. In this work, we examine the assumptions behind this method, particularly in conjunction with model selection. We show that these interact poorly with some now-standard tools of deep learning–stochastic approximation methods and normalisation layers–and make recommendations for how to better adapt this classic method to the modern setting. We provide theoretical support for our recommendations and validate them empirically on MLPs, classic CNNs, residual networks with and without normalisation layers, generative autoencoders and transformers. Javier Antorán, David Janz, James Urquhart Allingham, Erik A. Daxberger, Riccardo Barbano, Eric T. Nalisnick, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato |
ICML | 2 |
| 2020 | Bandit optimisation of functions in the Matérn kernel RKHSabstractWe consider the problem of optimising functions in the reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) of a Matérn kernel with smoothness parameter $u$ over the domain $[0,1]^d$ under noisy bandit feedback. Our contribution, the $\pi$-GP-UCB algorithm, is the first practical approach with guaranteed sublinear regret for all $u>1$ and $d \geq 1$. Empirical validation suggests better performance and drastically improved computational scalablity compared with its predecessor, Improved GP-UCB. David Janz, David R. Burt, Javier González 0002 |
AISTATS | 1 |
| 2019 | Learning to Drive in a DayabstractWe demonstrate the first application of deep reinforcement learning to autonomous driving. From randomly initialised parameters, our model is able to learn a policy for lane following in a handful of training episodes using a single monocular image as input. We provide a general and easy to obtain reward: the distance travelled by the vehicle without the safety driver taking control. We use a continuous, model-free deep reinforcement learning algorithm, with all exploration and optimisation performed on-vehicle. This demonstrates a new framework for autonomous driving which moves away from reliance on defined logical rules, mapping, and direct supervision. We discuss the challenges and opportunities to scale this approach to a broader range of autonomous driving tasks. Alex Kendall, Jeffrey Hawke, David Janz, Przemyslaw Mazur, Daniele Reda, John-Mark Allen, Vinh-Dieu Lam, Alex Bewley, Amar Shah 0001 |
ICRA | 3 |
| 2019 | Successor Uncertainties: Exploration and Uncertainty in Temporal Difference LearningabstractPosterior sampling for reinforcement learning (PSRL) is an effective method for balancing exploration and exploitation in reinforcement learning. Randomised value functions (RVF) can be viewed as a promising approach to scaling PSRL. However, we show that most contemporary algorithms combining RVF with neural network function approximation do not possess the properties which make PSRL effective, and provably fail in sparse reward problems. Moreover, we find that propagation of uncertainty, a property of PSRL previously thought important for exploration, does not preclude this failure. We use these insights to design Successor Uncertainties (SU), a cheap and easy to implement RVF algorithm that retains key properties of PSRL. SU is highly effective on hard tabular exploration benchmarks. Furthermore, on the Atari 2600 domain, it surpasses human performance on 38 of 49 games tested (achieving a median human normalised score of 2.09), and outperforms its closest RVF competitor, Bootstrapped DQN, on 36 of those. David Janz, Jiri Hron, Przemyslaw Mazur, Katja Hofmann, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato, Sebastian Tschiatschek |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2018 | Learning a Generative Model for Validity in Complex Discrete Structures
David Janz, Jos van der Westhuizen, Brooks Paige, Matt J. Kusner, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato |
ICLR (Poster) | 1 |