EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Anoop Korattikara Balan
dblp:22/10550 · also Anoop Korattikara
· DBLP profile ↗
11ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 11 · 3 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 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
8 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 27% Reinforcement learning · 17% Image recognition and object detection · 11% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Recommender systems · 100% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Performance modeling and evaluation · 100% |
Topics — the 22 heaviest of 26, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Measuring the Reliability of Reinforcement Learning Algorithms · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › imitation learning
inverse reinforcement learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | From Language to Goals: Inverse Reinforcement Learning for Vision-Based Instruction Following · ICLR (Poster) 2019 |
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
object detection |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Speed/Accuracy Trade-Offs for Modern Convolutional Object Detectors · CVPR 2017 |
Performance modeling and evaluation
benchmarking |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Speed/Accuracy Trade-Offs for Modern Convolutional Object Detectors · CVPR 2017 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
bayesian neural networks |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Bayesian dark knowledge · NIPS 2015 |
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
food recognition |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Im2Calories: Towards an Automated Mobile Vision Food Diary · ICCV 2015 |
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding › object segmentation
food segmentation |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Im2Calories: Towards an Automated Mobile Vision Food Diary · ICCV 2015 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression
knowledge distillation |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Bayesian dark knowledge · NIPS 2015 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
model compression |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Bayesian dark knowledge · NIPS 2015 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › bayesian prediction
posterior predictive distribution |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Bayesian dark knowledge · NIPS 2015 |
Recommender systems › collaborative filtering › matrix factorization
bayesian matrix factorization |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Large-Scale Distributed Bayesian Matrix Factorization using Stochastic Gradient MCMC · KDD 2015 |
Recommender systems › collaborative filtering › matrix factorization
distributed matrix factorization |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Large-Scale Distributed Bayesian Matrix Factorization using Stochastic Gradient MCMC · KDD 2015 |
Recommender systems › collaborative filtering
matrix factorization |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Large-Scale Distributed Bayesian Matrix Factorization using Stochastic Gradient MCMC · KDD 2015 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference
approximate bayesian inference |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Austerity in MCMC Land: Cutting the Metropolis-Hastings Budget · ICML 2014 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods
markov chain monte carlo |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Austerity in MCMC Land: Cutting the Metropolis-Hastings Budget · ICML 2014 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods › markov chain monte carlo
metropolis-hastings |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Austerity in MCMC Land: Cutting the Metropolis-Hastings Budget · ICML 2014 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
bayesian inference |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Bayesian Posterior Sampling via Stochastic Gradient Fisher Scoring · ICML 2012 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › sampling
posterior sampling |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Bayesian Posterior Sampling via Stochastic Gradient Fisher Scoring · ICML 2012 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › hyperparameter optimization
batch size selection |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Statistical Tests for Optimization Efficiency · NIPS 2011 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
hypothesis testing |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Statistical Tests for Optimization Efficiency · NIPS 2011 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
stochastic optimization |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Statistical Tests for Optimization Efficiency · NIPS 2011 |
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping
visual navigation |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | From Language to Goals: Inverse Reinforcement Learning for Vision-Based Instruction Following · ICLR (Poster) 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
stochastic gradient langevin dynamics · 0.6feature extractor comparison · 0.6SSD · 0.6R-FCN · 0.6Faster R-CNN · 0.6multi-label classification · 0.4convolutional neural network · 0.4reliability metrics · 0.4empirical evaluation · 0.4inverse reinforcement learning · 0.4stochastic gradient MCMC · 0.2gibbs sampling · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Measuring the Reliability of Reinforcement Learning Algorithms
Stephanie C. Y. Chan, Samuel Fishman, Anoop Korattikara Balan, John F. Canny, Sergio Guadarrama |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2019 | From Language to Goals: Inverse Reinforcement Learning for Vision-Based Instruction Following
Justin Fu, Anoop Korattikara Balan, Sergey Levine, Sergio Guadarrama |
ICLR (Poster) | 2 |
| 2017 | Speed/Accuracy Trade-Offs for Modern Convolutional Object DetectorsabstractThe goal of this paper is to serve as a guide for selecting a detection architecture that achieves the right speed/memory/accuracy balance for a given application and platform. To this end, we investigate various ways to trade accuracy for speed and memory usage in modern convolutional object detection systems. A number of successful systems have been proposed in recent years, but apples-toapples comparisons are difficult due to different base feature extractors (e.g., VGG, Residual Networks), different default image resolutions, as well as different hardware and software platforms. We present a unified implementation of the Faster R-CNN [30], R-FCN [6] and SSD [25] systems, which we view as meta-architectures and trace out the speed/accuracy trade-off curve created by using alternative feature extractors and varying other critical parameters such as image size within each of these meta-architectures. On one extreme end of this spectrum where speed and memory are critical, we present a detector that achieves real time speeds and can be deployed on a mobile device. On the opposite end in which accuracy is critical, we present a detector that achieves state-of-the-art performance measured on the COCO detection task. Jonathan Huang, Vivek Rathod, Chen Sun 0002, Menglong Zhu, Anoop Korattikara Balan, Alireza Fathi, Ian Fischer, Zbigniew Wojna, Yang Song 0009, Sergio Guadarrama, Kevin Murphy 0002 |
CVPR | 5 |
| 2016 | Sequential Tests for Large-Scale LearningabstractWe argue that when faced with big data sets, learning and inference algorithms should compute updates using only subsets of data items. We introduce algorithms that use sequential hypothesis tests to adaptively select such a subset of data points. The statistical properties of this subsampling process can be used to control the efficiency and accuracy of learning or inference. In the context of learning by optimization, we test for the probability that the update direction is no more than 90 degrees in the wrong direction. In the context of posterior inference using Markov chain Monte Carlo, we test for the probability that our decision to accept or reject a sample is wrong. We experimentally evaluate our algorithms on a number of models and data sets. Anoop Korattikara Balan, Yutian Chen 0001, Max Welling |
Neural Comput. | 1 |
| 2015 | Im2Calories: Towards an Automated Mobile Vision Food DiaryabstractWe present a system which can recognize the contents of your meal from a single image, and then predict its nutritional contents, such as calories. The simplest version assumes that the user is eating at a restaurant for which we know the menu. In this case, we can collect images offline to train a multi-label classifier. At run time, we apply the classifier (running on your phone) to predict which foods are present in your meal, and we lookup the corresponding nutritional facts. We apply this method to a new dataset of images from 23 different restaurants, using a CNN-based classifier, significantly outperforming previous work. The more challenging setting works outside of restaurants. In this case, we need to estimate the size of the foods, as well as their labels. This requires solving segmentation and depth / volume estimation from a single image. We present CNN-based approaches to these problems, with promising preliminary results. Austin Myers, Nicholas Johnston, Vivek Rathod, Anoop Korattikara Balan, Alexander N. Gorban, Nathan Silberman, Sergio Guadarrama, George Papandreou, Jonathan Huang, Kevin Murphy 0002 |
ICCV | 4 |
| 2015 | Large-Scale Distributed Bayesian Matrix Factorization using Stochastic Gradient MCMCabstractDespite having various attractive qualities such as high prediction accuracy and the ability to quantify uncertainty and avoid over-fitting, Bayesian Matrix Factorization has not been widely adopted because of the prohibitive cost of inference. In this paper, we propose a scalable distributed Bayesian matrix factorization algorithm using stochastic gradient MCMC. Our algorithm, based on Distributed Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics, can not only match the prediction accuracy of standard MCMC methods like Gibbs sampling, but at the same time is as fast and simple as stochastic gradient descent. In our experiments, we show that our algorithm can achieve the same level of prediction accuracy as Gibbs sampling an order of magnitude faster. We also show that our method reduces the prediction error as fast as distributed stochastic gradient descent, achieving a 4.1% improvement in RMSE for the Netflix dataset and an 1.8% for the Yahoo music dataset. Sungjin Ahn, Anoop Korattikara Balan, Nathan Liu, Suju Rajan, Max Welling |
KDD | 2 |
| 2015 | Bayesian dark knowledgeabstractWe consider the problem of Bayesian parameter estimation for deep neural networks, which is important in problem settings where we may have little data, and/ or where we need accurate posterior predictive densities p(y|x, D), e.g., for applications involving bandits or active learning. One simple approach to this is to use online Monte Carlo methods, such as SGLD (stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics). Unfortunately, such a method needs to store many copies of the parameters (which wastes memory), and needs to make predictions using many versions of the model (which wastes time).We describe a method for “distilling” a Monte Carlo approximation to the posterior predictive density into a more compact form, namely a single deep neural network. We compare to two very recent approaches to Bayesian neural networks, namely an approach based on expectation propagation [HLA15] and an approach based on variational Bayes [BCKW15]. Our method performs better than both of these, is much simpler to implement, and uses less computation at test time. Anoop Korattikara Balan, Vivek Rathod, Kevin Murphy 0002, Max Welling |
NIPS | 1 |
| 2014 | Approximate Slice Sampling for Bayesian Posterior InferenceabstractIn this paper, we advance the theory of large scale Bayesian posterior inference by introducing a new approximate slice sampler that uses only small mini-batches of data in every iteration. While this introduces a bias in the stationary distribution, the computational savings allow us to draw more samples in a given amount of time and reduce sampling variance. We empirically verify on three different models that the approximate slice sampling algorithm can significantly outperform a traditional slice sampler if we are allowed only a fixed amount of computing time for our simulations. Christopher DuBois, Anoop Korattikara Balan, Max Welling, Padhraic Smyth |
AISTATS | 2 |
| 2014 | Austerity in MCMC Land: Cutting the Metropolis-Hastings BudgetabstractCan we make Bayesian posterior MCMC sampling more efficient when faced with very large datasets? We argue that computing the likelihood for N datapoints in the Metropolis-Hastings (MH) test to reach a single binary decision is computationally inefficient. We introduce an approximate MH rule based on a sequential hypothesis test that allows us to accept or reject samples with high confidence using only a fraction of the data required for the exact MH rule. While this method introduces an asymptotic bias, we show that this bias can be controlled and is more than offset by a decrease in variance due to our ability to draw more samples per unit of time. Anoop Korattikara Balan, Yutian Chen 0001, Max Welling |
ICML | 1 |
| 2012 | Bayesian Posterior Sampling via Stochastic Gradient Fisher Scoring
Sungjin Ahn, Anoop Korattikara Balan, Max Welling |
ICML | 2 |
| 2011 | Statistical Tests for Optimization EfficiencyabstractLearning problems such as logistic regression are typically formulated as pure optimization problems defined on some loss function. We argue that this view ignores the fact that the loss function depends on stochastically generated data which in turn determines an intrinsic scale of precision for statistical estimation. By considering the statistical properties of the update variables used during the optimization (e.g. gradients), we can construct frequentist hypothesis tests to determine the reliability of these updates. We utilize subsets of the data for computing updates, and use the hypothesis tests for determining when the batch-size needs to be increased. This provides computational benefits and avoids overfitting by stopping when the batch-size has become equal to size of the full dataset. Moreover, the proposed algorithms depend on a single interpretable parameter – the probability for an update to be in the wrong direction – which is set to a single value across all algorithms and datasets. In this paper, we illustrate these ideas on three L1 regularized coordinate algorithms: L1 -regularized L2 -loss SVMs, L1 -regularized logistic regression, and the Lasso, but we emphasize that the underlying methods are much more generally applicable. Levi Boyles, Anoop Korattikara Balan, Deva Ramanan, Max Welling |
NIPS | 2 |