EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Lewis Smith
dblp:217/3306
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 1 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
3 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 54% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 22% Representation and self-supervised learning · 13% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Improving Sparse Decomposition of Language Model Activations with Gated Sparse Autoencoders · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
mechanistic interpretability |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Improving Sparse Decomposition of Language Model Activations with Gated Sparse Autoencoders · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › mechanistic interpretability
sparse autoencoder |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Improving Sparse Decomposition of Language Model Activations with Gated Sparse Autoencoders · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › unsupervised representation learning › sparse coding
sparse feature learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Improving Sparse Decomposition of Language Model Activations with Gated Sparse Autoencoders · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
bayesian neural networks |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Liberty or Depth: Deep Bayesian Neural Nets Do Not Need Complex Weight Posterior Approximations · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference
mean-field approximation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Liberty or Depth: Deep Bayesian Neural Nets Do Not Need Complex Weight Posterior Approximations · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
out-of-distribution detection |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Uncertainty Estimation Using a Single Deep Deterministic Neural Network · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Uncertainty Estimation Using a Single Deep Deterministic Neural Network · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
variational inference |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Liberty or Depth: Deep Bayesian Neural Nets Do Not Need Complex Weight Posterior Approximations · NeurIPS 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
l1 penalty · 0.8gated sparse autoencoder · 0.8structured covariance · 0.4mean-field variational inference · 0.4hamiltonian monte carlo · 0.4gradient penalty · 0.4centroid updating · 0.4RBF network · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Improving Sparse Decomposition of Language Model Activations with Gated Sparse AutoencodersabstractRecent work has found that sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are an effective technique for unsupervised discovery of interpretable features in language models' (LMs) activations, by finding sparse, linear reconstructions of those activations. We introduce the Gated Sparse Autoencoder (Gated SAE), which achieves a Pareto improvement over training with prevailing methods. In SAEs, the L1 penalty used to encourage sparsity introduces many undesirable biases, such as shrinkage -- systematic underestimation of feature activations. The key insight of Gated SAEs is to separate the functionality of (a) determining which directions to use and (b) estimating the magnitudes of those directions: this enables us to apply the L1 penalty only to the former, limiting the scope of undesirable side effects. Through training SAEs on LMs of up to 7B parameters we find that, in typical hyper-parameter ranges, Gated SAEs solve shrinkage, are similarly interpretable, and require half as many firing features to achieve comparable reconstruction fidelity. Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Arthur Conmy, Lewis Smith, Tom Lieberum, Vikrant Varma, János Kramár, Rohin Shah, Neel Nanda |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2020 | Uncertainty Estimation Using a Single Deep Deterministic Neural NetworkabstractWe propose a method for training a deterministic deep model that can find and reject out of distribution data points at test time with a single forward pass. Our approach, deterministic uncertainty quantification (DUQ), builds upon ideas of RBF networks. We scale training in these with a novel loss function and centroid updating scheme and match the accuracy of softmax models. By enforcing detectability of changes in the input using a gradient penalty, we are able to reliably detect out of distribution data. Our uncertainty quantification scales well to large datasets, and using a single model, we improve upon or match Deep Ensembles in out of distribution detection on notable difficult dataset pairs such as FashionMNIST vs. MNIST, and CIFAR-10 vs. SVHN. Joost van Amersfoort, Lewis Smith, Yee Whye Teh, Yarin Gal |
ICML | 2 |
| 2020 | Liberty or Depth: Deep Bayesian Neural Nets Do Not Need Complex Weight Posterior ApproximationsabstractWe challenge the longstanding assumption that the mean-field approximation for variational inference in Bayesian neural networks is severely restrictive, and show this is not the case in deep networks. We prove several results indicating that deep mean-field variational weight posteriors can induce similar distributions in function-space to those induced by shallower networks with complex weight posteriors. We validate our theoretical contributions empirically, both through examination of the weight posterior using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo in small models and by comparing diagonal- to structured-covariance in large settings. Since complex variational posteriors are often expensive and cumbersome to implement, our results suggest that using mean-field variational inference in a deeper model is both a practical and theoretically justified alternative to structured approximations. Sebastian Farquhar, Lewis Smith, Yarin Gal |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2018 | Understanding Measures of Uncertainty for Adversarial Example Detection
Lewis Smith, Yarin Gal |
UAI | 1 |