Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sanyam Kapoor
dblp:223/5826
· DBLP profile ↗
9ranked-venue papers
4as first author
9since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 9 · 4 first-author · 9 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
9 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 36% Learning theory · 22% Trustworthy machine learning · 16% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Human-AI interaction · 100% |
Topics — the 30 heaviest of 35, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization bounds |
1.4 | 2 | 2025 | Compute-Optimal LLMs Provably Generalize Better with Scale · ICLR 2025 PAC-Bayes Compression Bounds So Tight That They Can Explain Generalization · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | Large Language Models Must Be Taught to Know What They Don't Know · NeurIPS 2024 Function-Space Regularization in Neural Networks: A Probabilistic Perspective · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
bayesian neural networks |
1.2 | 2 | 2023 | Function-Space Regularization in Neural Networks: A Probabilistic Perspective · ICML 2023 On Uncertainty, Tempering, and Data Augmentation in Bayesian Classification · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes
gaussian process |
1.0 | 2 | 2021 | Variational Auto-Regressive Gaussian Processes for Continual Learning · ICML 2021 SKIing on Simplices: Kernel Interpolation on the Permutohedral Lattice for Scalable Gaussian Processes · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › concentration inequalities
martingale inequalities |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Compute-Optimal LLMs Provably Generalize Better with Scale · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
scaling laws |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Compute-Optimal LLMs Provably Generalize Better with Scale · ICLR 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model fine-tuning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Large Language Models Must Be Taught to Know What They Don't Know · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation › large language model uncertainty
LLM calibration |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Large Language Models Must Be Taught to Know What They Don't Know · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › optimization landscape
flat minima |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Should We Learn Most Likely Functions or Parameters? · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
function-space regularization |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Function-Space Regularization in Neural Networks: A Probabilistic Perspective · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Should We Learn Most Likely Functions or Parameters? · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference
MAP inference |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Should We Learn Most Likely Functions or Parameters? · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
uncertainty calibration |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Function-Space Regularization in Neural Networks: A Probabilistic Perspective · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
aleatoric uncertainty |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | On Uncertainty, Tempering, and Data Augmentation in Bayesian Classification · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference
approximate inference |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | On Uncertainty, Tempering, and Data Augmentation in Bayesian Classification · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models
bayesian deep learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Pre-Train Your Loss: Easy Bayesian Transfer Learning with Informative Priors · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation › knowledge transfer
bayesian transfer learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Pre-Train Your Loss: Easy Bayesian Transfer Learning with Informative Priors · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › approximate bayesian inference
cold posteriors |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | On Uncertainty, Tempering, and Data Augmentation in Bayesian Classification · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds
compression bounds |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | PAC-Bayes Compression Bounds So Tight That They Can Explain Generalization · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › prior distribution
informative priors |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Pre-Train Your Loss: Easy Bayesian Transfer Learning with Informative Priors · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
model compression |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | PAC-Bayes Compression Bounds So Tight That They Can Explain Generalization · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds
PAC-Bayes bounds |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | PAC-Bayes Compression Bounds So Tight That They Can Explain Generalization · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference
posterior inference |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Pre-Train Your Loss: Easy Bayesian Transfer Learning with Informative Priors · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression › quantization
quantized neural network |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | PAC-Bayes Compression Bounds So Tight That They Can Explain Generalization · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
continual learning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Variational Auto-Regressive Gaussian Processes for Continual Learning · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › nonparametric regression › kernel regression
kernel interpolation |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | SKIing on Simplices: Kernel Interpolation on the Permutohedral Lattice for Scalable Gaussian Processes · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process
scalable gaussian process |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | SKIing on Simplices: Kernel Interpolation on the Permutohedral Lattice for Scalable Gaussian Processes · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
variational inference |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Variational Auto-Regressive Gaussian Processes for Continual Learning · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression
quantization |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Compute-Optimal LLMs Provably Generalize Better with Scale · ICLR 2025 |
Human-AI interaction
human-AI collaboration |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Large Language Models Must Be Taught to Know What They Don't Know · NeurIPS 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
fine-tuning · 1.5LoRA · 1.5bayesian inference · 1.2variational inference · 1.2scaling laws · 0.9freedman-type martingale concentration · 0.9reparameterization · 0.7empirical bayes · 0.7tempering · 0.6dirichlet observation model · 0.6structured kernel interpolation · 0.5CUDA · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Compute-Optimal LLMs Provably Generalize Better with ScaleabstractWhy do larger language models generalize better? To explore this question, we develop generalization bounds on the pretraining objective of large language models (LLMs) in the compute-optimal regime, as described by the Chinchilla scaling laws. We introduce a novel, fully empirical Freedman-type martingale concentration inequality that tightens existing bounds by accounting for the variance of the loss function. The generalization bound can be broken into three contributions: the number of parameters per token, the loss variance, and the quantization error at a fixed bitrate. As language models are scaled up, the number of parameters per data point stays constant; however, both the loss variance and the quantization error decrease, implying that larger models should have \emph{smaller} generalization gaps. We examine why larger models tend to be more quantizable from an information theoretic perspective, showing that the rate at which they can integrate new information grows slower than their capacity on the compute optimal frontier. From these findings we produce a scaling law for the generalization gap, showing that our bounds decrease in a predictable way. Marc Finzi, Sanyam Kapoor, Diego Granziol, Anming Gu, Christopher De Sa, J. Zico Kolter, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2024 | Large Language Models Must Be Taught to Know What They Don't KnowabstractWhen using large language models (LLMs) in high-stakes applications, we need to know when we can trust their predictions. Some works argue that prompting high-performance LLMs is sufficient to produce calibrated uncertainties, while others introduce sampling methods that can be prohibitively expensive. In this work, we first argue that prompting on its own is insufficient to achieve good calibration and then show that fine-tuning on a small dataset of correct and incorrect answers can create an uncertainty estimate with good generalization and small computational overhead. We show that a thousand graded examples are sufficient to outperform baseline methods and that training through the features of a model is necessary for good performance and tractable for large open-source models when using LoRA. We also investigate the mechanisms that enable reliable LLM uncertainty estimation, finding that many models can be used as general-purpose uncertainty estimators, applicable not just to their own uncertainties but also the uncertainty of other models. Lastly, we show that uncertainty estimates inform human use of LLMs in human-AI collaborative settings through a user study. Sanyam Kapoor, Nate Gruver, Manley Roberts, Katie Collins, Arka Pal, Umang Bhatt, Adrian Weller, Samuel Dooley, Micah Goldblum, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2023 | Function-Space Regularization in Neural Networks: A Probabilistic PerspectiveabstractParameter-space regularization in neural network optimization is a fundamental tool for improving generalization. However, standard parameter-space regularization methods make it challenging to encode explicit preferences about desired predictive functions into neural network training. In this work, we approach regularization in neural networks from a probabilistic perspective and show that by viewing parameter-space regularization as specifying an empirical prior distribution over the model parameters, we can derive a probabilistically well-motivated regularization technique that allows explicitly encoding information about desired predictive functions into neural network training. This method—which we refer to as function-space empirical Bayes (FS-EB)—includes both parameter- and function-space regularization, is mathematically simple, easy to implement, and incurs only minimal computational overhead compared to standard regularization techniques. We evaluate the utility of this regularization technique empirically and demonstrate that the proposed method leads to near-perfect semantic shift detection, highly-calibrated predictive uncertainty estimates, successful task adaption from pre-trained models, and improved generalization under covariate shift. Tim G. J. Rudner, Sanyam Kapoor, Shikai Qiu, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
ICML | 2 |
| 2023 | Should We Learn Most Likely Functions or Parameters?abstractStandard regularized training procedures correspond to maximizing a posterior distribution over parameters, known as maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation. However, model parameters are of interest only insomuch as they combine with the functional form of a model to provide a function that can make good predictions. Moreover, the most likely parameters under the parameter posterior do not generally correspond to the most likely function induced by the parameter posterior. In fact, we can re-parametrize a model such that any setting of parameters can maximize the parameter posterior. As an alternative, we investigate the benefits and drawbacks of directly estimating the most likely function implied by the model and the data. We show that this procedure leads to pathological solutions when using neural networks and prove conditions under which the procedure is well-behaved, as well as a scalable approximation. Under these conditions, we find that function-space MAP estimation can lead to flatter minima, better generalization, and improved robustness to overfitting. Shikai Qiu, Tim G. J. Rudner, Sanyam Kapoor, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2022 | On Uncertainty, Tempering, and Data Augmentation in Bayesian ClassificationabstractAleatoric uncertainty captures the inherent randomness of the data, such as measurement noise. In Bayesian regression, we often use a Gaussian observation model, where we control the level of aleatoric uncertainty with a noise variance parameter. By contrast, for Bayesian classification we use a categorical distribution with no mechanism to represent our beliefs about aleatoric uncertainty. Our work shows that explicitly accounting for aleatoric uncertainty significantly improves the performance of Bayesian neural networks. We note that many standard benchmarks, such as CIFAR-10, have essentially no aleatoric uncertainty. Moreover, we show that data augmentation in approximate inference softens the likelihood, leading to underconfidence and misrepresenting our beliefs about aleatoric uncertainty. Accordingly, we find that a cold posterior, tempered by a power greater than one, often more honestly reflects our beliefs about aleatoric uncertainty than no tempering --- providing an explicit link between data augmentation and cold posteriors. We further show that we can match or exceed the performance of posterior tempering by using a Dirichlet observation model, where we explicitly control the level of aleatoric uncertainty, without any need for tempering. Sanyam Kapoor, Wesley J. Maddox, Pavel Izmailov, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2022 | PAC-Bayes Compression Bounds So Tight That They Can Explain GeneralizationabstractWhile there has been progress in developing non-vacuous generalization bounds for deep neural networks, these bounds tend to be uninformative about why deep learning works. In this paper, we develop a compression approach based on quantizing neural network parameters in a linear subspace, profoundly improving on previous results to provide state-of-the-art generalization bounds on a variety of tasks, including transfer learning. We use these tight bounds to better understand the role of model size, equivariance, and the implicit biases of optimization, for generalization in deep learning. Notably, we find large models can be compressed to a much greater extent than previously known, encapsulating Occam’s razor. Sanae Lotfi, Marc Finzi, Sanyam Kapoor, Andres Potapczynski, Micah Goldblum, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2022 | Pre-Train Your Loss: Easy Bayesian Transfer Learning with Informative PriorsabstractDeep learning is increasingly moving towards a transfer learning paradigm whereby large foundation models are fine-tuned on downstream tasks, starting from an initialization learned on the source task. But an initialization contains relatively little information about the source task, and does not reflect the belief that our knowledge of the source task should affect the locations and shape of optima on the downstream task.Instead, we show that we can learn highly informative posteriors from the source task, through supervised or self-supervised approaches, which then serve as the basis for priors that modify the whole loss surface on the downstream task. This simple modular approach enables significant performance gains and more data-efficient learning on a variety of downstream classification and segmentation tasks, serving as a drop-in replacement for standard pre-training strategies. These highly informative priors also can be saved for future use, similar to pre-trained weights, and stand in contrast to the zero-mean isotropic uninformative priors that are typically used in Bayesian deep learning. Ravid Shwartz-Ziv, Micah Goldblum, Hossein Souri, Sanyam Kapoor, Chen Zhu 0001, Yann LeCun, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
NeurIPS | 4 |
| 2021 | SKIing on Simplices: Kernel Interpolation on the Permutohedral Lattice for Scalable Gaussian ProcessesabstractState-of-the-art methods for scalable Gaussian processes use iterative algorithms, requiring fast matrix vector multiplies (MVMs) with the co-variance kernel. The Structured Kernel Interpolation (SKI) framework accelerates these MVMs by performing efficient MVMs on a grid and interpolating back to the original space. In this work, we develop a connection between SKI and the permutohedral lattice used for high-dimensional fast bilateral filtering. Using a sparse simplicial grid instead of a dense rectangular one, we can perform GP inference exponentially faster in the dimension than SKI. Our approach, Simplex-GP, enables scaling SKI to high dimensions, while maintaining strong predictive performance. We additionally provide a CUDA implementation of Simplex-GP, which enables significant GPU acceleration of MVM based inference. Sanyam Kapoor, Marc Finzi, Ke Alexander Wang, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
ICML | 1 |
| 2021 | Variational Auto-Regressive Gaussian Processes for Continual LearningabstractThrough sequential construction of posteriors on observing data online, Bayes’ theorem provides a natural framework for continual learning. We develop Variational Auto-Regressive Gaussian Processes (VAR-GPs), a principled posterior updating mechanism to solve sequential tasks in continual learning. By relying on sparse inducing point approximations for scalable posteriors, we propose a novel auto-regressive variational distribution which reveals two fruitful connections to existing results in Bayesian inference, expectation propagation and orthogonal inducing points. Mean predictive entropy estimates show VAR-GPs prevent catastrophic forgetting, which is empirically supported by strong performance on modern continual learning benchmarks against competitive baselines. A thorough ablation study demonstrates the efficacy of our modeling choices. Sanyam Kapoor, Theofanis Karaletsos, Thang D. Bui |
ICML | 1 |