EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Andrew Y. K. Foong
dblp:243/7014
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
3as first author
4since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 3 first-author · 4 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
6 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 62% Generative modeling · 14% Learning theory · 13% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computational science and engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 18 heaviest of 18, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process
neural processes |
1.5 | 3 | 2023 | Autoregressive Conditional Neural Processes · ICLR 2023 Meta-Learning Stationary Stochastic Process Prediction with Convolutional Neural Processes · NeurIPS 2020 Convolutional Conditional Neural Processes · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
bayesian neural networks |
0.9 | 2 | 2021 | Collapsed Variational Bounds for Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2021 On the Expressiveness of Approximate Inference in Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
variational inference |
0.9 | 2 | 2021 | Collapsed Variational Bounds for Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2021 On the Expressiveness of Approximate Inference in Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
autoregressive model |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Autoregressive Conditional Neural Processes · ICLR 2023 |
Computational science and engineering › statistical computing
boltzmann distribution sampling |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Timewarp: Transferable Acceleration of Molecular Dynamics by Learning Time-Coarsened Dynamics · NeurIPS 2023 |
Computational science and engineering › computational chemistry › molecular simulation › molecular dynamics
enhanced sampling |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Timewarp: Transferable Acceleration of Molecular Dynamics by Learning Time-Coarsened Dynamics · NeurIPS 2023 |
Computational science and engineering › computational chemistry › molecular simulation
molecular dynamics |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Timewarp: Transferable Acceleration of Molecular Dynamics by Learning Time-Coarsened Dynamics · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference › variational objective
evidence lower bound |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Collapsed Variational Bounds for Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization bounds |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | How Tight Can PAC-Bayes be in the Small Data Regime? · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds
PAC-Bayes bounds |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | How Tight Can PAC-Bayes be in the Small Data Regime? · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference
approximate inference |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | On the Expressiveness of Approximate Inference in Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
maximum likelihood learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Meta-Learning Stationary Stochastic Process Prediction with Convolutional Neural Processes · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
meta-learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Meta-Learning Stationary Stochastic Process Prediction with Convolutional Neural Processes · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference
monte carlo dropout |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | On the Expressiveness of Approximate Inference in Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
small-data regime |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | How Tight Can PAC-Bayes be in the Small Data Regime? · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › equivariant neural network
shift equivariance |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Meta-Learning Stationary Stochastic Process Prediction with Convolutional Neural Processes · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
stochastic processes |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Convolutional Conditional Neural Processes · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | On the Expressiveness of Approximate Inference in Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
normalizing flow · 0.7markov chain monte carlo · 0.7conditional neural process · 0.7autoregressive decoding · 0.7meta-learning · 0.5mean-field variational inference · 0.5collapsed variational bound · 0.5chernoff bound · 0.5PAC-Bayes · 0.5maximum-likelihood objective · 0.4convolutional neural process · 0.4convolutional neural network · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Autoregressive Conditional Neural Processes
Wessel P. Bruinsma, Stratis Markou, James Requeima, Andrew Y. K. Foong, Tom R. Andersson, Anna Vaughan, Anthony Buonomo, J. Scott Hosking, Richard E. Turner |
ICLR | 4 |
| 2023 | Timewarp: Transferable Acceleration of Molecular Dynamics by Learning Time-Coarsened Dynamicsabstract*Molecular dynamics* (MD) simulation is a widely used technique to simulate molecular systems, most commonly at the all-atom resolution where equations of motion are integrated with timesteps on the order of femtoseconds ($1\textrm{fs}=10^{-15}\textrm{s}$).
MD is often used to compute equilibrium properties, which requires sampling from an equilibrium distribution such as the Boltzmann distribution.
However, many important processes, such as binding and folding, occur over timescales of milliseconds or beyond, and cannot be efficiently sampled with conventional MD.
Furthermore, new MD simulations need to be performed for each molecular system studied.
We present *Timewarp*, an enhanced sampling method which uses a normalising flow as a proposal distribution in a Markov chain Monte Carlo method targeting the Boltzmann distribution.
The flow is trained offline on MD trajectories and learns to make large steps in time, simulating the molecular dynamics of $10^{5} - 10^{6} \textrm{fs}$.
Crucially, Timewarp is *transferable* between molecular systems: once trained, we show that it generalises to unseen small peptides (2-4 amino acids) at all-atom resolution, exploring their metastable states and providing wall-clock acceleration of sampling compared to standard MD.
Our method constitutes an important step towards general, transferable algorithms for accelerating MD. Leon Klein, Andrew Y. K. Foong, Tor Erlend Fjelde, Bruno Mlodozeniec, Marc Brockschmidt, Sebastian Nowozin, Frank Noé, Ryota Tomioka |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2021 | How Tight Can PAC-Bayes be in the Small Data Regime?abstractIn this paper, we investigate the question: _Given a small number of datapoints, for example $N = 30$, how tight can PAC-Bayes and test set bounds be made?_ For such small datasets, test set bounds adversely affect generalisation performance by withholding data from the training procedure. In this setting, PAC-Bayes bounds are especially attractive, due to their ability to use all the data to simultaneously learn a posterior and bound its generalisation risk. We focus on the case of i.i.d. data with a bounded loss and consider the generic PAC-Bayes theorem of Germain et al. While their theorem is known to recover many existing PAC-Bayes bounds, it is unclear what the tightest bound derivable from their framework is. For a fixed learning algorithm and dataset, we show that the tightest possible bound coincides with a bound considered by Catoni; and, in the more natural case of distributions over datasets, we establish a lower bound on the best bound achievable in expectation. Interestingly, this lower bound recovers the Chernoff test set bound if the posterior is equal to the prior. Moreover, to illustrate how tight these bounds can be, we study synthetic one-dimensional classification tasks in which it is feasible to meta-learn both the prior and the form of the bound to numerically optimise for the tightest bounds possible. We find that in this simple, controlled scenario, PAC-Bayes bounds are competitive with comparable, commonly used Chernoff test set bounds. However, the sharpest test set bounds still lead to better guarantees on the generalisation error than the PAC-Bayes bounds we consider. Andrew Y. K. Foong, Wessel P. Bruinsma, David R. Burt, Richard E. Turner |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2021 | Collapsed Variational Bounds for Bayesian Neural NetworksabstractRecent interest in learning large variational Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs) has been partly hampered by poor predictive performance caused by underfitting, and their performance is known to be very sensitive to the prior over weights. Current practice often fixes the prior parameters to standard values or tunes them using heuristics or cross-validation. In this paper, we treat prior parameters in a distributional way by extending the model and collapsing the variational bound with respect to their posteriors. This leads to novel and tighter Evidence Lower Bounds (ELBOs) for performing variational inference (VI) in BNNs. Our experiments show that the new bounds significantly improve the performance of Gaussian mean-field VI applied to BNNs on a variety of data sets, demonstrating that mean-field VI works well even in deep models. We also find that the tighter ELBOs can be good optimization targets for learning the hyperparameters of hierarchical priors. Marcin Tomczak, Siddharth Swaroop, Andrew Y. K. Foong, Richard E. Turner |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2020 | Convolutional Conditional Neural Processes
Jonathan Gordon 0003, Wessel P. Bruinsma, Andrew Y. K. Foong, James Requeima, Yann Dubois, Richard E. Turner |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2020 | Meta-Learning Stationary Stochastic Process Prediction with Convolutional Neural ProcessesabstractStationary stochastic processes (SPs) are a key component of many probabilistic models, such as those for off-the-grid spatio-temporal data. They enable the statistical symmetry of underlying physical phenomena to be leveraged, thereby aiding generalization. Prediction in such models can be viewed as a translation equivariant map from observed data sets to predictive SPs, emphasizing the intimate relationship between stationarity and equivariance. Building on this, we propose the Convolutional Neural Process (ConvNP), which endows Neural Processes (NPs) with translation equivariance and extends convolutional conditional NPs to allow for dependencies in the predictive distribution. The latter enables ConvNPs to be deployed in settings which require coherent samples, such as Thompson sampling or conditional image completion. Moreover, we propose a new maximum-likelihood objective to replace the standard ELBO objective in NPs, which conceptually simplifies the framework and empirically improves performance. We demonstrate the strong performance and generalization capabilities of ConvNPs on 1D regression, image completion, and various tasks with real-world spatio-temporal data. Andrew Y. K. Foong, Wessel P. Bruinsma, Jonathan Gordon 0003, Yann Dubois, James Requeima, Richard E. Turner |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2020 | On the Expressiveness of Approximate Inference in Bayesian Neural NetworksabstractWhile Bayesian neural networks (BNNs) hold the promise of being flexible, well-calibrated statistical models, inference often requires approximations whose consequences are poorly understood. We study the quality of common variational methods in approximating the Bayesian predictive distribution. For single-hidden layer ReLU BNNs, we prove a fundamental limitation in function-space of two of the most commonly used distributions defined in weight-space: mean-field Gaussian and Monte Carlo dropout. We find there are simple cases where neither method can have substantially increased uncertainty in between well-separated regions of low uncertainty. We provide strong empirical evidence that exact inference does not have this pathology, hence it is due to the approximation and not the model. In contrast, for deep networks, we prove a universality result showing that there exist approximate posteriors in the above classes which provide flexible uncertainty estimates. However, we find empirically that pathologies of a similar form as in the single-hidden layer case can persist when performing variational inference in deeper networks. Our results motivate careful consideration of the implications of approximate inference methods in BNNs. Andrew Y. K. Foong, David R. Burt, Yingzhen Li, Richard E. Turner |
NeurIPS | 1 |