EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
J. Scott Hosking
dblp:254/2798
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 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
3 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 62% Generative modeling · 21% Trustworthy machine learning · 14% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Environmental and earth informatics · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Algorithms and data structures · 100% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Generative modeling
autoregressive model |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Autoregressive Conditional Neural Processes · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process
neural processes |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Autoregressive Conditional Neural Processes · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
bayesian neural networks |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Ensembling geophysical models with Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes
gaussian process |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Scalable Exact Inference in Multi-Output Gaussian Processes · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process
multi-output gaussian process |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Scalable Exact Inference in Multi-Output Gaussian Processes · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Ensembling geophysical models with Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2020 |
Algorithms and data structures
numerical linear algebra |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Scalable Exact Inference in Multi-Output Gaussian Processes · ICML 2020 |
Computer vision › Video understanding and tracking
spatio-temporal modeling |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Scalable Exact Inference in Multi-Output Gaussian Processes · ICML 2020 |
Environmental and earth informatics › climate prediction
climate projection |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Ensembling geophysical models with Bayesian Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
sufficient statistics · 0.9orthogonal basis · 0.9heteroscedastic uncertainty modeling · 0.9exact inference · 0.9bayesian neural network · 0.9conditional neural process · 0.7autoregressive decoding · 0.7
| 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 | 8 |
| 2020 | Scalable Exact Inference in Multi-Output Gaussian ProcessesabstractMulti-output Gaussian processes (MOGPs) leverage the flexibility and interpretability of GPs while capturing structure across outputs, which is desirable, for example, in spatio-temporal modelling. The key problem with MOGPs is their computational scaling $O(n^3 p^3)$, which is cubic in the number of both inputs $n$ (e.g., time points or locations) and outputs $p$. For this reason, a popular class of MOGPs assumes that the data live around a low-dimensional linear subspace, reducing the complexity to $O(n^3 m^3)$. However, this cost is still cubic in the dimensionality of the subspace $m$, which is still prohibitively expensive for many applications. We propose the use of a sufficient statistic of the data to accelerate inference and learning in MOGPs with orthogonal bases. The method achieves linear scaling in $m$ in practice, allowing these models to scale to large $m$ without sacrificing significant expressivity or requiring approximation. This advance opens up a wide range of real-world tasks and can be combined with existing GP approximations in a plug-and-play way. We demonstrate the efficacy of the method on various synthetic and real-world data sets. Wessel P. Bruinsma, Eric Perim, William Tebbutt, J. Scott Hosking, Arno Solin, Richard E. Turner |
ICML | 4 |
| 2020 | Ensembling geophysical models with Bayesian Neural NetworksabstractEnsembles of geophysical models improve projection accuracy and express uncertainties. We develop a novel data-driven ensembling strategy for combining geophysical models using Bayesian Neural Networks, which infers spatiotemporally varying model weights and bias while accounting for heteroscedastic uncertainties in the observations. This produces more accurate and uncertainty-aware projections without sacrificing interpretability. Applied to the prediction of total column ozone from an ensemble of 15 chemistry-climate models, we find that the Bayesian neural network ensemble (BayNNE) outperforms existing ensembling methods, achieving a 49.4% reduction in RMSE for temporal extrapolation, and a 67.4% reduction in RMSE for polar data voids, compared to a weighted mean. Uncertainty is also well-characterized, with 90.6% of the data points in our extrapolation validation dataset lying within 2 standard deviations and 98.5% within 3 standard deviations. Ushnish Sengupta, Matt Amos, J. Scott Hosking, Carl E. Rasmussen, Matthew P. Juniper, Paul J. Young |
NeurIPS | 3 |