Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Peter M. Williams
dblp:21/6456
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
7as first author
0since 2021 · last 2007
0000-0003-4914-119XORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 7 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 |
Time series and sequential data · 100% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Environmental and earth informatics · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Time series and sequential data
time series modeling |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Modelling Seasonality and Trends in Daily Rainfall Data · NIPS 1997 |
Environmental and earth informatics › climate science
climate data analysis |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Modelling Seasonality and Trends in Daily Rainfall Data · NIPS 1997 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
bayesian modeling · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | Notes on conditional previsions
Peter M. Williams |
Int. J. Approx. Reason. | 1 |
| 1999 | Matrix logarithm parametrizations for neural network covariance models
Peter M. Williams |
Neural Networks | 1 |
| 1997 | Modelling Seasonality and Trends in Daily Rainfall Data
Peter M. Williams |
NIPS | 1 |
| 1996 | Using neural networks to model conditional multivariate densitiesabstractNeural network outputs are interpreted as parameters of statistical distributions. This allows us to fit conditional distributions in which the parameters depend on the inputs to the network. We exploit this in modeling multivariate data, including the univariate case, in which there may be input-dependent (e.g., time-dependent) correlations between output components. This provides a novel way of modeling conditional correlation that extends existing techniques for determining input-dependent (local) error bars. Peter M. Williams |
Neural Comput. | 1 |
| 1995 | Bayesian Regularization and Pruning Using a Laplace PriorabstractStandard techniques for improved generalization from neural networks include weight decay and pruning. Weight decay has a Bayesian interpretation with the decay function corresponding to a prior over weights. The method of transformation groups and maximum entropy suggests a Laplace rather than a gaussian prior. After training, the weights then arrange themselves into two classes: (1) those with a common sensitivity to the data error and (2) those failing to achieve this sensitivity and that therefore vanish. Since the critical value is determined adaptively during training, pruning—in the sense of setting weights to exact zeros—becomes an automatic consequence of regularization alone. The count of free parameters is also reduced automatically as weights are pruned. A comparison is made with results of MacKay using the evidence framework and a gaussian regularizer. Peter M. Williams |
Neural Comput. | 1 |
| 1993 | Aeromagnetic Compensation using Neural Networks
Peter M. Williams |
Neural Comput. Appl. | 1 |
| 1990 | An interpretation of Shenoy and Shafer's axioms for local computation
Peter M. Williams |
Int. J. Approx. Reason. | 1 |