Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Steven Kleinegesse

dblp:228/9341 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2021
0000-0003-2681-6991ORCID · verified

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 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
2 papers
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 50% Deep learning architectures and training · 34% Representation and self-supervised learning · 16%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › deep generative model
implicit models
0.922021
Implicit Deep Adaptive Design: Policy-Based Experimental Design without Likelihoods · NeurIPS 2021
Bayesian Experimental Design for Implicit Models by Mutual Information Neural Estimation · ICML 2020
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › experimental design › bayesian experimental design
bayesian optimal experimental design
0.512021
Implicit Deep Adaptive Design: Policy-Based Experimental Design without Likelihoods · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › experimental design
bayesian experimental design
0.412020
Bayesian Experimental Design for Implicit Models by Mutual Information Neural Estimation · ICML 2020
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
mutual information maximization
0.412020
Bayesian Experimental Design for Implicit Models by Mutual Information Neural Estimation · ICML 2020
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference
posterior inference
0.412020
Bayesian Experimental Design for Implicit Models by Mutual Information Neural Estimation · ICML 2020

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

design policy network · 0.5amortized inference · 0.5neural network · 0.4neural mutual information estimation · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Bayesian Experimental Design for Intractable Models of Cognition
Simon Valentin, Steven Kleinegesse, Neil Bramley, Michael U. Gutmann, Christopher G. Lucas
CogSci2
2021 Implicit Deep Adaptive Design: Policy-Based Experimental Design without Likelihoods
abstract
We introduce implicit Deep Adaptive Design (iDAD), a new method for performing adaptive experiments in real-time with implicit models. iDAD amortizes the cost of Bayesian optimal experimental design (BOED) by learning a design policy network upfront, which can then be deployed quickly at the time of the experiment. The iDAD network can be trained on any model which simulates differentiable samples, unlike previous design policy work that requires a closed form likelihood and conditionally independent experiments. At deployment, iDAD allows design decisions to be made in milliseconds, in contrast to traditional BOED approaches that require heavy computation during the experiment itself. We illustrate the applicability of iDAD on a number of experiments, and show that it provides a fast and effective mechanism for performing adaptive design with implicit models.
Desi R. Ivanova, Adam Foster 0001, Steven Kleinegesse, Michael U. Gutmann, Tom Rainforth
NeurIPS3
2020 Bayesian Experimental Design for Implicit Models by Mutual Information Neural Estimation
abstract
Implicit stochastic models, where the data-generation distribution is intractable but sampling is possible, are ubiquitous in the natural sciences. The models typically have free parameters that need to be inferred from data collected in scientific experiments. A fundamental question is how to design the experiments so that the collected data are most useful. The field of Bayesian experimental design advocates that, ideally, we should choose designs that maximise the mutual information (MI) between the data and the parameters. For implicit models, however, this approach is severely hampered by the high computational cost of computing posteriors and maximising MI, in particular when we have more than a handful of design variables to optimise. In this paper, we propose a new approach to Bayesian experimental design for implicit models that leverages recent advances in neural MI estimation to deal with these issues. We show that training a neural network to maximise a lower bound on MI allows us to jointly determine the optimal design and the posterior. Simulation studies illustrate that this gracefully extends Bayesian experimental design for implicit models to higher design dimensions.
Steven Kleinegesse, Michael U. Gutmann
ICML1
2019 Efficient Bayesian Experimental Design for Implicit Models
abstract
Bayesian experimental design involves the optimal allocation of resources in an experiment, with the aim of optimising cost and performance. For implicit models, where the likelihood is intractable but sampling from the model is possible, this task is particularly difficult and therefore largely unexplored. This is mainly due to technical difficulties associated with approximating posterior distributions and utility functions. We devise a novel experimental design framework for implicit models that improves upon previous work in two ways. First, we use the mutual information between parameters and data as the utility function, which has previously not been feasible. We achieve this by utilising Likelihood-Free Inference by Ratio Estimation (LFIRE) to approximate posterior distributions, instead of the traditional approximate Bayesian computation or synthetic likelihood methods. Secondly, we use Bayesian optimisation in order to solve the optimal design problem, as opposed to the typically used grid search or sampling-based methods. We find that this increases efficiency and allows us to consider higher design dimensions.
Steven Kleinegesse, Michael U. Gutmann
AISTATS1