Stephan Sloth Lorenzen

dblp:228/8546 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
8ranked-venue papers
5as first author
4since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0001-6701-3752ORCID · verified

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 4 first-author · 4 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 1 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
3 papers
Learning theory · 60% Kernel, tree and ensemble methods · 22% Representation and self-supervised learning · 9%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Algorithms and data structures · 100%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Data mining · 100%

Topics — the 14 heaviest of 14, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
ensemble learning
0.922021
Chebyshev-Cantelli PAC-Bayes-Bennett Inequality for the Weighted Majority Vote · NeurIPS 2021
Second Order PAC-Bayesian Bounds for the Weighted Majority Vote · NeurIPS 2020
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization bounds
0.922021
Chebyshev-Cantelli PAC-Bayes-Bennett Inequality for the Weighted Majority Vote · NeurIPS 2021
Second Order PAC-Bayesian Bounds for the Weighted Majority Vote · NeurIPS 2020
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds
PAC-Bayes bounds
0.922021
Chebyshev-Cantelli PAC-Bayes-Bennett Inequality for the Weighted Majority Vote · NeurIPS 2021
Second Order PAC-Bayesian Bounds for the Weighted Majority Vote · NeurIPS 2020
Machine learning › Learning theory
weighted majority vote
0.922021
Chebyshev-Cantelli PAC-Bayes-Bennett Inequality for the Weighted Majority Vote · NeurIPS 2021
Second Order PAC-Bayesian Bounds for the Weighted Majority Vote · NeurIPS 2020
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
information bottleneck
0.612022
Information Bottleneck: Exact Analysis of (Quantized) Neural Networks · ICLR 2022
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression › quantization
quantized neural network
0.612022
Information Bottleneck: Exact Analysis of (Quantized) Neural Networks · ICLR 2022
Machine learning › Learning theory
concentration of measure
0.512021
Chebyshev-Cantelli PAC-Bayes-Bennett Inequality for the Weighted Majority Vote · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Learning theory › excess risk bounds
oracle inequality
0.512021
Chebyshev-Cantelli PAC-Bayes-Bennett Inequality for the Weighted Majority Vote · NeurIPS 2021
Algorithms and data structures › similarity search
maximum inner product search
0.512021
Revisiting Wedge Sampling for Budgeted Maximum Inner Product Search (Extended Abstract) · IJCAI 2021
Algorithms and data structures › randomized algorithms
sampling
0.512021
Revisiting Wedge Sampling for Budgeted Maximum Inner Product Search (Extended Abstract) · IJCAI 2021
Algorithms and data structures
similarity search
0.512021
Revisiting Wedge Sampling for Budgeted Maximum Inner Product Search (Extended Abstract) · IJCAI 2021
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods › ensemble learning
majority voting
0.412020
Second Order PAC-Bayesian Bounds for the Weighted Majority Vote · NeurIPS 2020
Data mining › predictive modeling
classification
0.112020
Second Order PAC-Bayesian Bounds for the Weighted Majority Vote · NeurIPS 2020
Data mining › predictive modeling › classification
multiclass classification
0.112020
Second Order PAC-Bayesian Bounds for the Weighted Majority Vote · NeurIPS 2020

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

unlabeled data exploitation · 0.9second-order PAC-Bayes analysis · 0.9information bottleneck · 0.6wedge sampling · 0.5diamond sampling · 0.5chebyshev-cantelli inequality · 0.5bennett's inequality · 0.5PAC-Bayesian bounding · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Online transfer learning with partial feedback
Zhongfeng Kang, Mads Nielsen, Bo Yang 0011, Lihui Deng, Stephan Sloth Lorenzen
Expert Syst. Appl.5
2022 Information Bottleneck: Exact Analysis of (Quantized) Neural Networks
Stephan Sloth Lorenzen, Christian Igel, Mads Nielsen
ICLR1
2021 Revisiting Wedge Sampling for Budgeted Maximum Inner Product Search (Extended Abstract)
abstract
Top-k maximum inner product search (MIPS) is a central task in many machine learning applications. This work extends top-k MIPS with a budgeted setting, that asks for the best approximate top-k MIPS given a limited budget of computational operations. We study recent advanced sampling methods, including wedge and diamond sampling, to solve budgeted top-k MIPS. First, we theoretically show that diamond sampling is essentially a combination of wedge sampling and basic sampling for top-k MIPS. Second, we propose dWedge, a simple deterministic variant of wedge sampling for budgeted top-k MIPS. Empirically, dWedge provides significantly higher accuracy than other budgeted top-k MIPS solvers while maintaining a similar speedup.
Stephan Sloth Lorenzen, Ninh Pham
IJCAI1
2021 Chebyshev-Cantelli PAC-Bayes-Bennett Inequality for the Weighted Majority Vote
abstract
We present a new second-order oracle bound for the expected risk of a weighted majority vote. The bound is based on a novel parametric form of the Chebyshev-Cantelli inequality (a.k.a. one-sided Chebyshev’s), which is amenable to efficient minimization. The new form resolves the optimization challenge faced by prior oracle bounds based on the Chebyshev-Cantelli inequality, the C-bounds [Germain et al., 2015], and, at the same time, it improves on the oracle bound based on second order Markov’s inequality introduced by Masegosa et al. [2020]. We also derive a new concentration of measure inequality, which we name PAC-Bayes-Bennett, since it combines PAC-Bayesian bounding with Bennett’s inequality. We use it for empirical estimation of the oracle bound. The PAC-Bayes-Bennett inequality improves on the PAC-Bayes-Bernstein inequality of Seldin et al. [2012]. We provide an empirical evaluation demonstrating that the new bounds can improve on the work of Masegosa et al. [2020]. Both the parametric form of the Chebyshev-Cantelli inequality and the PAC-Bayes-Bennett inequality may be of independent interest for the study of concentration of measure in other domains.
Yi-Shan Wu 0003, Andrés R. Masegosa, Stephan Sloth Lorenzen, Christian Igel, Yevgeny Seldin
NeurIPS3
2020 Second Order PAC-Bayesian Bounds for the Weighted Majority Vote
abstract
We present a novel analysis of the expected risk of weighted majority vote in multiclass classification. The analysis takes correlation of predictions by ensemble members into account and provides a bound that is amenable to efficient minimization, which yields improved weighting for the majority vote. We also provide a specialized version of our bound for binary classification, which allows to exploit additional unlabeled data for tighter risk estimation. In experiments, we apply the bound to improve weighting of trees in random forests and show that, in contrast to the commonly used first order bound, minimization of the new bound typically does not lead to degradation of the test error of the ensemble.
Andrés R. Masegosa, Stephan Sloth Lorenzen, Christian Igel, Yevgeny Seldin
NeurIPS2
2020 Revisiting Wedge Sampling for Budgeted Maximum Inner Product Search
Stephan Sloth Lorenzen, Ninh Pham
ECML/PKDD (1)1
2019 On PAC-Bayesian bounds for random forests
Stephan Sloth Lorenzen, Christian Igel, Yevgeny Seldin
Mach. Learn.1
2016 Steiner Tree Heuristic in the Euclidean d-Space Using Bottleneck Distances
Stephan Sloth Lorenzen, Pawel Winter
SEA1