Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Freddie Bickford Smith
dblp:260/0834
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
3as first author
5since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 3 first-author · 5 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 |
Trustworthy machine learning · 38% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 16% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 12% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › model validation
active testing |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Scaling Up Active Testing to Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty · ICML 2025 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
decision theory |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
label-efficient evaluation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Scaling Up Active Testing to Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model evaluation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Scaling Up Active Testing to Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
bayesian neural networks |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Continual Learning via Sequential Function-Space Variational Inference · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
continual learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Continual Learning via Sequential Function-Space Variational Inference · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference
functional variational inference |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Continual Learning via Sequential Function-Space Variational Inference · ICML 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
information theory · 0.9in-context learning · 0.9decision theory · 0.9bootstrap estimation · 0.9sequential variational inference · 0.6bayesian inference · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Rethinking Aleatoric and Epistemic UncertaintyabstractThe ideas of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty are widely used to reason about the probabilistic predictions of machine-learning models. We identify incoherence in existing discussions of these ideas and suggest this stems from the aleatoric-epistemic view being insufficiently expressive to capture all the distinct quantities that researchers are interested in. To address this we present a decision-theoretic perspective that relates rigorous notions of uncertainty, predictive performance and statistical dispersion in data. This serves to support clearer thinking as the field moves forward. Additionally we provide insights into popular information-theoretic quantities, showing they can be poor estimators of what they are often purported to measure, while also explaining how they can still be useful in guiding data acquisition. Freddie Bickford Smith, Jannik Kossen, Eleanor Trollope, Mark van der Wilk, Adam Foster 0001, Tom Rainforth |
ICML | 1 |
| 2025 | Scaling Up Active Testing to Large Language ModelsabstractActive testing enables label-efficient evaluation of predictive models through careful data acquisition, but it can pose a significant computational cost. We identify cost-saving measures that enable active testing to be scaled up to large language models (LLMs). In particular we show that the surrogate model used to guide data acquisition can be constructed cheaply using in-context learning, does not require updating within an active-testing loop, and can be smaller than the target model. We even find we can make good data-acquisition decisions without making predictions with the target model. As a result we are able to achieve much more accurate evaluations of LLM performance relative to using randomly acquired data. We additionally introduce a bootstrap estimator of evaluation error, which we show to be a useful indicator of how well active testing is working within a single run. Gabrielle Berrada, Jannik Kossen, Freddie Bickford Smith, Muhammed Razzak, Yarin Gal, Tom Rainforth |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2024 | Making Better Use of Unlabelled Data in Bayesian Active LearningabstractFully supervised models are predominant in Bayesian active learning. We argue that their neglect of the information present in unlabelled data harms not just predictive performance but also decisions about what data to acquire. Our proposed solution is a simple framework for semi-supervised Bayesian active learning. We find it produces better-performing models than either conventional Bayesian active learning or semi-supervised learning with randomly acquired data. It is also easier to scale up than the conventional approach. As well as supporting a shift towards semi-supervised models, our findings highlight the importance of studying models and acquisition methods in conjunction. Freddie Bickford Smith, Adam Foster 0001, Tom Rainforth |
AISTATS | 1 |
| 2023 | Prediction-Oriented Bayesian Active Learning
Freddie Bickford Smith, Andreas Kirsch 0002, Sebastian Farquhar, Yarin Gal, Adam Foster 0001, Tom Rainforth |
AISTATS | 1 |
| 2022 | Continual Learning via Sequential Function-Space Variational InferenceabstractSequential Bayesian inference over predictive functions is a natural framework for continual learning from streams of data. However, applying it to neural networks has proved challenging in practice. Addressing the drawbacks of existing techniques, we propose an optimization objective derived by formulating continual learning as sequential function-space variational inference. In contrast to existing methods that regularize neural network parameters directly, this objective allows parameters to vary widely during training, enabling better adaptation to new tasks. Compared to objectives that directly regularize neural network predictions, the proposed objective allows for more flexible variational distributions and more effective regularization. We demonstrate that, across a range of task sequences, neural networks trained via sequential function-space variational inference achieve better predictive accuracy than networks trained with related methods while depending less on maintaining a set of representative points from previous tasks. Tim G. J. Rudner, Freddie Bickford Smith, Qixuan Feng, Yee Whye Teh, Yarin Gal |
ICML | 2 |