Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Vincent Stimper
dblp:253/8559
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
1as first author
6since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0002-4965-4297ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 1 first-author · 6 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
5 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 29% Generative modeling · 16% Learning theory · 14% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computational science and engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 15 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Generative modeling
normalizing flow |
1.3 | 2 | 2023 | SE(3) Equivariant Augmented Coupling Flows · NeurIPS 2023 Flow Annealed Importance Sampling Bootstrap · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
density estimation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | SE(3) Equivariant Augmented Coupling Flows · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods
importance sampling |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Flow Annealed Importance Sampling Bootstrap · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
automated machine learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | AutoML Two-Sample Test · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
hypothesis testing |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | AutoML Two-Sample Test · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › hypothesis testing
two-sample testing |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | AutoML Two-Sample Test · NeurIPS 2022 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
causality |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Independent mechanism analysis, a new concept? · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods › markov chain monte carlo
hamiltonian monte carlo |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | A Gradient Based Strategy for Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Hyperparameter Optimization · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
hyperparameter optimization |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | A Gradient Based Strategy for Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Hyperparameter Optimization · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › blind source separation
independent component analysis |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Independent mechanism analysis, a new concept? · NeurIPS 2021 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › causal reasoning
independent mechanisms |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Independent mechanism analysis, a new concept? · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods
markov chain monte carlo |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | A Gradient Based Strategy for Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Hyperparameter Optimization · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
stochastic gradient descent |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | A Gradient Based Strategy for Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Hyperparameter Optimization · ICML 2021 |
Computational science and engineering › computational chemistry
molecular simulation |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | SE(3) Equivariant Augmented Coupling Flows · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
distribution shift |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | AutoML Two-Sample Test · NeurIPS 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
rational-quadratic splines · 1.3importance sampling · 1.3flow annealed importance sampling bootstrap · 0.7SE(3)-equivariance · 0.7SE(3) equivariance · 0.7witness function · 0.6mean discrepancy · 0.6AutoML · 0.6stochastic gradient descent · 0.5independent mechanism analysis · 0.5hamiltonian monte carlo · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Flow Annealed Importance Sampling Bootstrap
Laurence Illing Midgley, Vincent Stimper, Gregor N. C. Simm, Bernhard Schölkopf, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2023 | SE(3) Equivariant Augmented Coupling FlowsabstractCoupling normalizing flows allow for fast sampling and density evaluation, making them the tool of choice for probabilistic modeling of physical systems.
However, the standard coupling architecture precludes endowing flows that operate on the Cartesian coordinates of atoms with the SE(3) and permutation invariances of physical systems.
This work proposes a coupling flow that preserves SE(3) and permutation equivariance by performing coordinate splits along additional augmented dimensions. At each layer, the flow maps atoms' positions into learned SE(3) invariant bases, where we apply standard flow transformations, such as monotonic rational-quadratic splines, before returning to the original basis.
Crucially, our flow preserves fast sampling and density evaluation, and may be used to produce unbiased estimates of expectations with respect to the target distribution via importance sampling.
When trained on the DW4, LJ13, and QM9-positional datasets, our flow is competitive with equivariant continuous normalizing flows and diffusion models, while allowing sampling more than an order of magnitude faster.
Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first to learn the full Boltzmann distribution of alanine dipeptide by only modeling the Cartesian positions of its atoms.
Lastly, we demonstrate that our flow can be trained to approximately sample from the Boltzmann distribution of the DW4 and LJ13 particle systems using only their energy functions. Laurence Illing Midgley, Vincent Stimper, Javier Antorán, Emile Mathieu, Bernhard Schölkopf, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2022 | Resampling Base Distributions of Normalizing FlowsabstractNormalizing flows are a popular class of models for approximating probability distributions. However, their invertible nature limits their ability to model target distributions whose support have a complex topological structure, such as Boltzmann distributions. Several procedures have been proposed to solve this problem but many of them sacrifice invertibility and, thereby, tractability of the log-likelihood as well as other desirable properties. To address these limitations, we introduce a base distribution for normalizing flows based on learned rejection sampling, allowing the resulting normalizing flow to model complicated distributions without giving up bijectivity. Furthermore, we develop suitable learning algorithms using both maximizing the log-likelihood and the optimization of the Kullback-Leibler divergence, and apply them to various sample problems, i.e. approximating 2D densities, density estimation of tabular data, image generation, and modeling Boltzmann distributions. In these experiments our method is competitive with or outperforms the baselines. Vincent Stimper, Bernhard Schölkopf, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato |
AISTATS | 1 |
| 2022 | AutoML Two-Sample TestabstractTwo-sample tests are important in statistics and machine learning, both as tools for scientific discovery as well as to detect distribution shifts.This led to the development of many sophisticated test procedures going beyond the standard supervised learning frameworks, whose usage can require specialized knowledge about two-sample testing. We use a simple test that takes the mean discrepancy of a witness function as the test statistic and prove that minimizing a squared loss leads to a witness with optimal testing power. This allows us to leverage recent advancements in AutoML. Without any user input about the problems at hand, and using the same method for all our experiments, our AutoML two-sample test achieves competitive performance on a diverse distribution shift benchmark as well as on challenging two-sample testing problems. Jonas M. Kübler, Vincent Stimper, Simon Buchholz, Krikamol Muandet, Bernhard Schölkopf |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2021 | A Gradient Based Strategy for Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Hyperparameter OptimizationabstractHamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) is one of the most successful sampling methods in machine learning. However, its performance is significantly affected by the choice of hyperparameter values. Existing approaches for optimizing the HMC hyperparameters either optimize a proxy for mixing speed or consider the HMC chain as an implicit variational distribution and optimize a tractable lower bound that can be very loose in practice. Instead, we propose to optimize an objective that quantifies directly the speed of convergence to the target distribution. Our objective can be easily optimized using stochastic gradient descent. We evaluate our proposed method and compare to baselines on a variety of problems including sampling from synthetic 2D distributions, reconstructing sparse signals, learning deep latent variable models and sampling molecular configurations from the Boltzmann distribution of a 22 atom molecule. We find that our method is competitive with or improves upon alternative baselines in all these experiments. Vincent Stimper, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato |
ICML | 3 |
| 2021 | Independent mechanism analysis, a new concept?abstractIndependent component analysis provides a principled framework for unsupervised representation learning, with solid theory on the identifiability of the latent code that generated the data, given only observations of mixtures thereof. Unfortunately, when the mixing is nonlinear, the model is provably nonidentifiable, since statistical independence alone does not sufficiently constrain the problem. Identifiability can be recovered in settings where additional, typically observed variables are included in the generative process. We investigate an alternative path and consider instead including assumptions reflecting the principle of independent causal mechanisms exploited in the field of causality. Specifically, our approach is motivated by thinking of each source as independently influencing the mixing process. This gives rise to a framework which we term independent mechanism analysis. We provide theoretical and empirical evidence that our approach circumvents a number of nonidentifiability issues arising in nonlinear blind source separation. Luigi Gresele, Julius von Kügelgen, Vincent Stimper, Bernhard Schölkopf, Michel Besserve |
NeurIPS | 3 |