EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Marvin Pförtner
dblp:308/0647
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
1as first author
6since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
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
4 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 80% Trustworthy machine learning · 13% Generative modeling · 7% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computational science and engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 16 heaviest of 17, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › approximate bayesian inference
laplace approximation |
1.5 | 2 | 2024 | Reparameterization invariance in approximate Bayesian inference · NeurIPS 2024 FSP-Laplace: Function-Space Priors for the Laplace Approximation in Bayesian Deep Learning · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes
gaussian process |
1.4 | 2 | 2025 | Linearization Turns Neural Operators into Function-Valued Gaussian Processes · ICML 2025 Posterior and Computational Uncertainty in Gaussian Processes · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
bayesian uncertainty quantification |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Linearization Turns Neural Operators into Function-Valued Gaussian Processes · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › approximate bayesian inference
linearized laplace approximation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Linearization Turns Neural Operators into Function-Valued Gaussian Processes · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference
approximate bayesian inference |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Reparameterization invariance in approximate Bayesian inference · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models
bayesian deep learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | FSP-Laplace: Function-Space Priors for the Laplace Approximation in Bayesian Deep Learning · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
bayesian neural networks |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Reparameterization invariance in approximate Bayesian inference · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process
function-space prior |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | FSP-Laplace: Function-Space Priors for the Laplace Approximation in Bayesian Deep Learning · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process
gaussian process prior |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | FSP-Laplace: Function-Space Priors for the Laplace Approximation in Bayesian Deep Learning · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › sampling
posterior sampling |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Reparameterization invariance in approximate Bayesian inference · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling › diffusion model › geometric diffusion model
riemannian diffusion model |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Reparameterization invariance in approximate Bayesian inference · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process
scalable gaussian process |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Posterior and Computational Uncertainty in Gaussian Processes · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Posterior and Computational Uncertainty in Gaussian Processes · NeurIPS 2022 |
Computational science and engineering › scientific machine learning
neural operator |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Linearization Turns Neural Operators into Function-Valued Gaussian Processes · ICML 2025 |
Computational science and engineering
scientific machine learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Linearization Turns Neural Operators into Function-Valued Gaussian Processes · ICML 2025 |
Algorithms and data structures
numerical linear algebra |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Posterior and Computational Uncertainty in Gaussian Processes · NeurIPS 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
model linearization · 1.7fourier neural operator · 1.7bayesian deep learning · 1.7conjugate gradient · 1.1cholesky factorization · 1.1riemannian diffusion process · 0.8matrix-free linear algebra · 0.8linearized laplace approximation · 0.8laplace approximation · 0.8gaussian process · 0.8inducing points · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Computation-Aware Kalman Filtering and SmoothingabstractKalman filtering and smoothing are the foundational mechanisms for efficient inference in Gauss-Markov models. However, their time and memory complexities scale prohibitively with the size of the state space. This is particularly problematic in spatiotemporal regression problems, where the state dimension scales with the number of spatial observations. Existing approximate frameworks leverage low-rank approximations of the covariance matrix. But since they do not model the error introduced by the computational approximation, their predictive uncertainty estimates can be overly optimistic. In this work, we propose a probabilistic numerical method for inference in high-dimensional Gauss-Markov models which mitigates these scaling issues. Our matrix-free iterative algorithm leverages GPU acceleration and crucially enables a tunable trade-off between computational cost and predictive uncertainty. Finally, we demonstrate the scalability of our method on a large-scale climate dataset. Marvin Pförtner, Jonathan Wenger, Jon Cockayne, Philipp Hennig |
AISTATS | 1 |
| 2025 | Flexible and Efficient Probabilistic PDE Solvers through Gaussian Markov Random FieldsabstractMechanistic knowledge about the physical world is virtually always expressed via partial differential equations (PDEs). Recently, there has been a surge of interest in probabilistic PDE solvers—Bayesian statistical models mostly based on Gaussian process (GP) priors which seamlessly combine empirical measurements and mechanistic knowledge. As such, they quantify uncertainties arising from e.g. noisy or missing data, unknown PDE parameters or discretization error by design. Prior work has established connections to classical PDE solvers and provided solid theoretical guarantees. However, scaling such methods to large-scale problems remains a fundamental challenge primarily due to dense covariance matrices. Our approach addresses the scalability issues by leveraging the Markov property of many commonly used GP priors. It has been shown that such priors are solutions to stochastic PDEs (SPDEs) which when discretized allow for highly efficient GP regression through sparse linear algebra. In this work, we show how to leverage this prior class to make probabilistic PDE solvers practical, even for large-scale nonlinear PDEs, through greatly accelerated inference mechanisms. Additionally, our approach also allows for flexible and physically meaningful priors beyond what can be modeled with covariance functions. Experiments confirm substantial speedups and accelerated convergence of our physics-informed priors in nonlinear settings. Tim Weiland, Marvin Pförtner, Philipp Hennig |
AISTATS | 2 |
| 2025 | Linearization Turns Neural Operators into Function-Valued Gaussian ProcessesabstractNeural operators generalize neural networks to learn mappings between function spaces from data. They are commonly used to learn solution operators of parametric partial differential equations (PDEs) or propagators of time-dependent PDEs. However, to make them useful in high-stakes simulation scenarios, their inherent predictive error must be quantified reliably. We introduce LUNO, a novel framework for approximate Bayesian uncertainty quantification in trained neural operators. Our approach leverages model linearization to push (Gaussian) weight-space uncertainty forward to the neural operator’s predictions. We show that this can be interpreted as a probabilistic version of the concept of currying from functional programming, yielding a function-valued (Gaussian) random process belief. Our framework provides a practical yet theoretically sound way to apply existing Bayesian deep learning methods such as the linearized Laplace approximation to neural operators. Just as the underlying neural operator, our approach is resolution-agnostic by design. The method adds minimal prediction overhead, can be applied post-hoc without retraining the network, and scales to large models and datasets. We evaluate these aspects in a case study on Fourier neural operators. Emilia Magnani, Marvin Pförtner, Philipp Hennig |
ICML | 2 |
| 2024 | FSP-Laplace: Function-Space Priors for the Laplace Approximation in Bayesian Deep LearningabstractLaplace approximations are popular techniques for endowing deep networks with epistemic uncertainty estimates as they can be applied without altering the predictions of the trained network, and they scale to large models and datasets. While the choice of prior strongly affects the resulting posterior distribution, computational tractability and lack of interpretability of the weight space typically limit the Laplace approximation to isotropic Gaussian priors, which are known to cause pathological behavior as depth increases. As a remedy, we directly place a prior on function space. More precisely, since Lebesgue densities do not exist on infinite-dimensional function spaces, we recast training as finding the so-called weak mode of the posterior measure under a Gaussian process (GP) prior restricted to the space of functions representable by the neural network. Through the GP prior, one can express structured and interpretable inductive biases, such as regularity or periodicity, directly in function space, while still exploiting the implicit inductive biases that allow deep networks to generalize. After model linearization, the training objective induces a negative log-posterior density to which we apply a Laplace approximation, leveraging highly scalable methods from matrix-free linear algebra. Our method provides improved results where prior knowledge is abundant (as is the case in many scientific inference tasks). At the same time, it stays competitive for black-box supervised learning problems, where neural networks typically excel. Tristan Cinquin, Marvin Pförtner, Vincent Fortuin, Philipp Hennig, Robert Bamler |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2024 | Reparameterization invariance in approximate Bayesian inferenceabstractCurrent approximate posteriors in Bayesian neural networks (BNNs) exhibit a crucial limitation: they fail to maintain invariance under reparameterization, i.e. BNNs assign different posterior densities to different parametrizations of identical functions. This creates a fundamental flaw in the application of Bayesian principles as it breaks the correspondence between uncertainty over the parameters with uncertainty over the parametrized function. In this paper, we investigate this issue in the context of the increasingly popular linearized Laplace approximation. Specifically, it has been observed that linearized predictives alleviate the common underfitting problems of the Laplace approximation. We develop a new geometric view of reparametrizations from which we explain the success of linearization. Moreover, we demonstrate that these reparameterization invariance properties can be extended to the original neural network predictive using a Riemannian diffusion process giving a straightforward algorithm for approximate posterior sampling, which empirically improves posterior fit. Hrittik Roy, Marco Miani, Carl Henrik Ek, Philipp Hennig, Marvin Pförtner, Lukas Tatzel, Søren Hauberg |
NeurIPS | 5 |
| 2022 | Posterior and Computational Uncertainty in Gaussian ProcessesabstractGaussian processes scale prohibitively with the size of the dataset. In response, many approximation methods have been developed, which inevitably introduce approximation error. This additional source of uncertainty, due to limited computation, is entirely ignored when using the approximate posterior. Therefore in practice, GP models are often as much about the approximation method as they are about the data. Here, we develop a new class of methods that provides consistent estimation of the combined uncertainty arising from both the finite number of data observed and the finite amount of computation expended. The most common GP approximations map to an instance in this class, such as methods based on the Cholesky factorization, conjugate gradients, and inducing points. For any method in this class, we prove (i) convergence of its posterior mean in the associated RKHS, (ii) decomposability of its combined posterior covariance into mathematical and computational covariances, and (iii) that the combined variance is a tight worst-case bound for the squared error between the method's posterior mean and the latent function. Finally, we empirically demonstrate the consequences of ignoring computational uncertainty and show how implicitly modeling it improves generalization performance on benchmark datasets. Jonathan Wenger, Geoff Pleiss, Marvin Pförtner, Philipp Hennig, John P. Cunningham |
NeurIPS | 3 |