Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jen Ning Lim
dblp:250/9539
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
5as first author
4since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 5 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
3 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 80% Learning theory · 13% Trustworthy machine learning · 7% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models
latent variable model |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Momentum Particle Maximum Likelihood · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › parameter estimation
maximum likelihood estimation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Momentum Particle Maximum Likelihood · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference
particle-based variational inference |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Particle Semi-Implicit Variational Inference · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods › sequential monte carlo
particle method |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Momentum Particle Maximum Likelihood · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference
semi-implicit variational inference |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Particle Semi-Implicit Variational Inference · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
variational inference |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Particle Semi-Implicit Variational Inference · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › risk control
false discovery rate control |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Kernel Stein Tests for Multiple Model Comparison · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › hypothesis testing
multiple hypothesis testing |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Kernel Stein Tests for Multiple Model Comparison · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › hypothesis testing
nonparametric hypothesis testing |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Kernel Stein Tests for Multiple Model Comparison · NeurIPS 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
wasserstein gradient flow · 0.8optimal transport · 0.8nesterov accelerated gradient · 0.8markov chain monte carlo · 0.8langevin diffusion · 0.8post selection inference · 0.4multiple correction · 0.4kernel stein discrepancy · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Momentum Particle Maximum LikelihoodabstractMaximum likelihood estimation (MLE) of latent variable models is often recast as the minimization of a free energy functional over an extended space of parameters and probability distributions. This perspective was recently combined with insights from optimal transport to obtain novel particle-based algorithms for fitting latent variable models to data. Drawing inspiration from prior works which interpret ‘momentum-enriched’ optimization algorithms as discretizations of ordinary differential equations, we propose an analogous dynamical-systems-inspired approach to minimizing the free energy functional. The result is a dynamical system that blends elements of Nesterov’s Accelerated Gradient method, the underdamped Langevin diffusion, and particle methods. Under suitable assumptions, we prove that the continuous-time system minimizes the functional. By discretizing the system, we obtain a practical algorithm for MLE in latent variable models. The algorithm outperforms existing particle methods in numerical experiments and compares favourably with other MLE algorithms. Jen Ning Lim, Juan Kuntz, Samuel Power, Adam M. Johansen |
ICML | 1 |
| 2024 | Particle Semi-Implicit Variational InferenceabstractSemi-implicit variational inference (SIVI) enriches the expressiveness of variational
families by utilizing a kernel and a mixing distribution to hierarchically define the
variational distribution. Existing SIVI methods parameterize the mixing distribution
using implicit distributions, leading to intractable variational densities. As a result,
directly maximizing the evidence lower bound (ELBO) is not possible, so they
resort to one of the following: optimizing bounds on the ELBO, employing costly
inner-loop Markov chain Monte Carlo runs, or solving minimax objectives. In this
paper, we propose a novel method for SIVI called Particle Variational Inference
(PVI) which employs empirical measures to approximate the optimal mixing
distributions characterized as the minimizer of a free energy functional. PVI arises
naturally as a particle approximation of a Euclidean–Wasserstein gradient flow and,
unlike prior works, it directly optimizes the ELBO whilst making no parametric
assumption about the mixing distribution. Our empirical results demonstrate that
PVI performs favourably compared to other SIVI methods across various tasks.
Moreover, we provide a theoretical analysis of the behaviour of the gradient flow
of a related free energy functional: establishing the existence and uniqueness of
solutions as well as propagation of chaos results. Jen Ning Lim, Adam M. Johansen |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2023 | Particle algorithms for maximum likelihood training of latent variable modelsabstractNeal and Hinton (1998) recast maximum likelihood estimation of any given latent variable model as the minimization of a free energy functional F, and the EM algorithm as coordinate descent applied to F. Here, we explore alternative ways to optimize the functional. In particular, we identify various gradient flows associated with F and show that their limits coincide with F’s stationary points. By discretizing the flows, we obtain practical particle-based algorithms for maximum likelihood estimation in broad classes of latent variable models. The novel algorithms scale to high-dimensional settings and perform well in numerical experiments. Juan Kuntz, Jen Ning Lim, Adam M. Johansen |
AISTATS | 2 |
| 2023 | Energy-Based Models for Functional Data using Path Measure TiltingabstractEnergy-Based Models (EBMs) have proven to be a highly effective approach for modelling densities on finite-dimensional spaces. Their ability to incorporate domain-specific choices and constraints into the structure of the model through composition make EBMs an appealing candidate for applications in physics, biology and computer vision and various other fields. Recently, Energy-Based Processes (EBP) for modelling stochastic processes was proposed for unconditional exchangeable data (e.g., point clouds). In this work, we present a novel subclass of EBPs, called $\mathcal{F}$-EBM for conditional exchangeable data, which is able to learn distributions of functions (such as curves or surfaces) from functional samples evaluated at finitely many points. Two unique challenges arise in the functional context. Firstly, training data is often not evaluated along a fixed set of points. Secondly, steps must be taken to control the behaviour of the model between evaluation points, to mitigate overfitting. The proposed model is an energy based model on function space that is decomposed spectrally, where a Gaussian Process path measure is used to reweight the distribution to capture smoothness properties of the underlying process being modelled. The resulting model has the ability to utilize irregularly sampled training data and can output predictions at any resolution, providing an effective approach to up-scaling functional data. We demonstrate the efficacy of our proposed approach for modelling a range of datasets, including data collected from Standard and Poor’s 500 (S$&$P) and UK National grid. Jen Ning Lim, Sebastian J. Vollmer, Lorenz Wolf, Andrew B. Duncan |
AISTATS | 1 |
| 2020 | More Powerful Selective Kernel Tests for Feature SelectionabstractRefining one’s hypotheses in light of data is a commonplace scientific practice, however,this approach introduces selection bias and can lead to specious statisticalanalysis.One approach of addressing this phenomena is via conditioning on the selection procedure, i.e., how we have used the data to generate our hypotheses, and prevents information to be used again after selection.Many selective inference (a.k.a. post-selection inference) algorithms typically take this approach but will “over-condition”for sake of tractability. While this practice obtains well calibrated $p$-values,it can incur a major loss in power. In our work, we extend two recent proposals for selecting features using the Maximum Mean Discrepancyand Hilbert Schmidt Independence Criterion to condition on the minimalconditioning event. We show how recent advances inmultiscale bootstrap makesthis possible and demonstrate our proposal over a range of synthetic and real world experiments.Our results show that our proposed test is indeed more powerful in most scenarios. Jen Ning Lim, Makoto Yamada, Wittawat Jitkrittum, Yoshikazu Terada, Shigeyuki Matsui, Hidetoshi Shimodaira |
AISTATS | 1 |
| 2019 | Kernel Stein Tests for Multiple Model ComparisonabstractWe address the problem of non-parametric multiple model comparison: given $l$ candidate models, decide whether each candidate is as good as the best one(s) or worse than it. We propose two statistical tests, each controlling a different notion of decision errors. The first test, building on the post selection inference framework, provably controls the number of best models that are wrongly declared worse (false positive rate). The second test is based on multiple correction, and controls the proportion of the models declared worse but are in fact as good as the best (false discovery rate). We prove that under appropriate conditions the first test can yield a higher true positive rate than the second. Experimental results on toy and real (CelebA, Chicago Crime data) problems show that the two tests have high true positive rates with well-controlled error rates. By contrast, the naive approach of choosing the model with the lowest score without correction leads to more false positives. Jen Ning Lim, Makoto Yamada, Bernhard Schölkopf, Wittawat Jitkrittum |
NeurIPS | 1 |