Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Edward Milsom

dblp:348/6212 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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
4 papers
Kernel, tree and ensemble methods · 33% Deep learning architectures and training · 19% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 14%

Topics — the 11 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods › kernel methods › kernel machines
deep kernel machines
1.522024
Stochastic Kernel Regularisation Improves Generalisation in Deep Kernel Machines · NeurIPS 2024
Convolutional Deep Kernel Machines · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
kernel methods
1.522024
Stochastic Kernel Regularisation Improves Generalisation in Deep Kernel Machines · NeurIPS 2024
Convolutional Deep Kernel Machines · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
hyperparameter transfer
0.912025
Function-Space Learning Rates · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
learning rate schedule
0.912025
Function-Space Learning Rates · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › hyperparameter transfer
learning rate transfer
0.912025
Function-Space Learning Rates · ICML 2025
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
visual recognition
0.812024
Convolutional Deep Kernel Machines · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process › hierarchical gaussian process
deep gaussian process
0.712023
A theory of representation learning gives a deep generalisation of kernel methods · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes
gaussian process
0.712023
A theory of representation learning gives a deep generalisation of kernel methods · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Learning theory › neural network theory
infinite-width limit
0.712023
A theory of representation learning gives a deep generalisation of kernel methods · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation analysis
representation learning theory
0.712023
A theory of representation learning gives a deep generalisation of kernel methods · ICML 2023
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
image classification
0.212024
Stochastic Kernel Regularisation Improves Generalisation in Deep Kernel Machines · NeurIPS 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

backward passes · 0.9stochastic kernel regularization · 0.8inter-domain inducing point approximation · 0.8gram matrix · 0.8batch normalization · 0.8inducing point methods · 0.7bayesian representation learning limit · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Function-Space Learning Rates
abstract
We consider layerwise function-space learning rates, which measure the magnitude of the change in a neural network’s output function in response to an update to a parameter tensor. This contrasts with traditional learning rates, which describe the magnitude of changes in parameter space. We develop efficient methods to measure and set function-space learning rates in arbitrary neural networks, requiring only minimal computational overhead through a few additional backward passes that can be performed at the start of, or periodically during, training. We demonstrate two key applications: (1) analysing the dynamics of standard neural network optimisers in function space, rather than parameter space, and (2) introducing FLeRM (Function-space Learning Rate Matching), a novel approach to hyperparameter transfer across model scales. FLeRM records function-space learning rates while training a small, cheap base model, then automatically adjusts parameter-space layerwise learning rates when training larger models to maintain consistent function-space updates. FLeRM gives hyperparameter transfer across model width, depth, initialisation scale, and LoRA rank in various architectures including MLPs with residual connections and transformers with different layer normalisation schemes.
Edward Milsom, Ben Anson, Laurence Aitchison
ICML1
2024 Convolutional Deep Kernel Machines
abstract
Standard infinite-width limits of neural networks sacrifice the ability for intermediate layers to learn representations from data. Recent work (“A theory of representation learning gives a deep generalisation of kernel methods”, Yang et al. 2023) modified the Neural Network Gaussian Process (NNGP) limit of Bayesian neural networks so that representation learning is retained. Furthermore, they found that applying this modified limit to a deep Gaussian process gives a practical learning algorithm which they dubbed the “deep kernel machine” (DKM). However, they only considered the simplest possible setting: regression in small, fully connected networks with e.g. 10 input features. Here, we introduce convolutional deep kernel machines. This required us to develop a novel inter-domain inducing point approximation, as well as introducing and experimentally assessing a number of techniques not previously seen in DKMs, including analogues to batch normalisation, different likelihoods, and different types of top-layer. The resulting model trains in roughly 77 GPU hours, achieving around 99\% test accuracy on MNIST, 72\% on CIFAR-100, and 92.7\% on CIFAR-10, which is SOTA for kernel methods.
Edward Milsom, Ben Anson, Laurence Aitchison
ICLR1
2024 Stochastic Kernel Regularisation Improves Generalisation in Deep Kernel Machines
abstract
Recent work developed convolutional deep kernel machines, achieving 92.7% test accuracy on CIFAR-10 using a ResNet-inspired architecture, which is SOTA for kernel methods. However, this still lags behind neural networks, which easily achieve over 94% test accuracy with similar architectures. In this work we introduce several modifications to improve the convolutional deep kernel machine’s generalisation, including stochastic kernel regularisation, which adds noise to the learned Gram matrices during training. The resulting model achieves 94.5% test accuracy on CIFAR-10. This finding has important theoretical and practical implications, as it demonstrates that the ability to perform well on complex tasks like image classification is not unique to neural networks. Instead, other approaches including deep kernel methods can achieve excellent performance on such tasks, as long as they have the capacity to learn representations from data.
Edward Milsom, Ben Anson, Laurence Aitchison
NeurIPS1
2023 A theory of representation learning gives a deep generalisation of kernel methods
abstract
The successes of modern deep machine learning methods are founded on their ability to transform inputs across multiple layers to build good high-level representations. It is therefore critical to understand this process of representation learning. However, standard theoretical approaches (formally NNGPs) involving infinite width limits eliminate representation learning. We therefore develop a new infinite width limit, the Bayesian representation learning limit, that exhibits representation learning mirroring that in finite-width models, yet at the same time, retains some of the simplicity of standard infinite-width limits. In particular, we show that Deep Gaussian processes (DGPs) in the Bayesian representation learning limit have exactly multivariate Gaussian posteriors, and the posterior covariances can be obtained by optimizing an interpretable objective combining a log-likelihood to improve performance with a series of KL-divergences which keep the posteriors close to the prior. We confirm these results experimentally in wide but finite DGPs. Next, we introduce the possibility of using this limit and objective as a flexible, deep generalisation of kernel methods, that we call deep kernel machines (DKMs). Like most naive kernel methods, DKMs scale cubically in the number of datapoints. We therefore use methods from the Gaussian process inducing point literature to develop a sparse DKM that scales linearly in the number of datapoints. Finally, we extend these approaches to NNs (which have non-Gaussian posteriors) in the Appendices.
Adam X. Yang, Maxime Robeyns, Edward Milsom, Ben Anson, Nandi Schoots, Laurence Aitchison
ICML3
2023 An improved variational approximate posterior for the deep Wishart process
abstract
Deep kernel processes are a recently introduced class of deep Bayesian models that have the flexibility of neural networks, but work entirely with Gram matrices. They operate by alternately sampling a Gram matrix from a distribution over positive semi-definite matrices, and applying a deterministic transformation. When the distribution is chosen to be Wishart, the model is called a deep Wishart process (DWP). This particular model is of interest because its prior is equivalent to a deep Gaussian process (DGP) prior, but at the same time it is invariant to rotational symmetries, leading to a simpler posterior distribution. Practical inference in the DWP was made possible in recent work (“A variational approximate posterior for the deep Wishart process” Ober and Aitchison, 2021a) where the authors used a generalisation of the Bartlett decomposition of the Wishart distribution as the variational approximate posterior. However, predictive performance in that paper was less impressive than one might expect, with the DWP only beating a DGP on a few of the UCI datasets used for comparison. In this paper, we show that further generalising their distribution to allow linear combinations of rows and columns in the Bartlett decomposition results in better predictive performance, while incurring negligible additional computation cost.
Sebastian W. Ober, Ben Anson, Edward Milsom, Laurence Aitchison
UAI3