Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Alessandra Sutti
dblp:209/4901
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
0000-0002-1793-3881ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1
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 |
Optimization for machine learning · 68% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 27% Deep learning architectures and training · 5% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Mathematical optimization · 100% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computational science and engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 8 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › model-based optimization
bayesian optimization |
1.0 | 3 | 2019 | Bayesian Functional Optimisation with Shape Prior · AAAI 2019 Accelerating Experimental Design by Incorporating Experimenter Hunches · ICDM 2018 Process-constrained batch Bayesian optimisation · NIPS 2017 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › optimization
functional optimization |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Bayesian Functional Optimisation with Shape Prior · AAAI 2019 |
Mathematical optimization
bayesian optimization |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Bayesian Functional Optimisation with Shape Prior · AAAI 2019 |
Mathematical optimization
black-box optimization |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Bayesian Functional Optimisation with Shape Prior · AAAI 2019 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
experimental design |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Accelerating Experimental Design by Incorporating Experimenter Hunches · ICDM 2018 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes
gaussian process |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Accelerating Experimental Design by Incorporating Experimenter Hunches · ICDM 2018 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › model-based optimization › bayesian optimization
batch bayesian optimization |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Process-constrained batch Bayesian optimisation · NIPS 2017 |
Computational science and engineering › materials science
materials design |
0.1 | 1 | 2018 | Accelerating Experimental Design by Incorporating Experimenter Hunches · ICDM 2018 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
gaussian process · 1.7shape prior · 0.8bernstein polynomial basis · 0.8two-stage modeling · 0.7regret analysis · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Accelerated Bayesian Optimisation through Weight-Prior TuningabstractBayesian optimization (BO) is a widely-used method for optimizing expensive (to evaluate) problems. At the core of most BO methods is the modeling of the objective function using a Gaussian Process (GP) whose covariance is selected from a set of standard covariance functions. From a weight-space view, this models the objective as a linear function in a feature space implied by the given covariance $K$, with an arbitrary Gaussian weight prior ${\bf w} \sim ormdist ({\bf 0},{\bf I})$. In many practical applications there is data available that has a similar (covariance) structure to the objective, but which, having different form, cannot be used directly in standard transfer learning. In this paper we show how such auxiliary data may be used to construct a GP covariance corresponding to a more appropriate weight prior for the objective function. Building on this, we show that we may accelerate BO by modeling the objective function using this (learned) weight prior, which we demonstrate on both test functions and a practical application to short-polymer fibre manufacture. Alistair Shilton, Sunil Gupta 0001, Santu Rana, Pratibha Vellanki, Cheng Li 0003, Svetha Venkatesh, Laurence Anthony F. Park, Alessandra Sutti, David Rubin, Thomas Dorin, Alireza Vahid, Murray Height, Teo Slezak |
AISTATS | 8 |
| 2019 | Bayesian Functional Optimisation with Shape PriorabstractReal world experiments are expensive, and thus it is important to reach a target in a minimum number of experiments. Experimental processes often involve control variables that change over time. Such problems can be formulated as functional optimisation problem. We develop a novel Bayesian optimisation framework for such functional optimisation of expensive black-box processes. We represent the control function using Bernstein polynomial basis and optimise in the coefficient space. We derive the theory and practice required to dynamically adjust the order of the polynomial degree, and show how prior information about shape can be integrated. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach for short polymer fibre design and optimising learning rate schedules for deep networks. Pratibha Vellanki, Santu Rana, Sunil Gupta 0001, David Rubin de Celis Leal, Alessandra Sutti, Murray Height, Svetha Venkatesh |
AAAI | 5 |
| 2018 | Accelerating Experimental Design by Incorporating Experimenter HunchesabstractExperimental design is a process of obtaining a product with target property via experimentation. Bayesian optimization offers a sample-efficient tool for experimental design when experiments are expensive. Often, expert experimenters have 'hunches' about the behavior of the experimental system, offering potentials to further improve the efficiency. In this paper, we consider per-variable monotonic trend in the underlying property that results in a unimodal trend in those variables for a target value optimization. For example, sweetness of a candy is monotonic to the sugar content. However, to obtain a target sweetness, the utility of the sugar content becomes a unimodal function, which peaks at the value giving the target sweetness and falls off both ways. In this paper, we propose a novel method to solve such problems that achieves two main objectives: (a) the monotonicity information is used to the fullest extent possible, whilst ensuring that (b) the convergence guarantee remains intact. This is achieved by a two-stage Gaussian process modeling, where the first stage uses the monotonicity trend to model the underlying property, and the second stage uses 'virtual' samples, sampled from the first, to model the target value optimization function. The process is made theoretically consistent by adding appropriate adjustment factor in the posterior computation, necessitated because of using the 'virtual' samples. The proposed method is evaluated through both simulations and real world experimental design problems of (a) new short polymer fiber with the target length, and (b) designing of a new three dimensional porous scaffolding with a target porosity. In all scenarios our method demonstrates faster convergence than the basic Bayesian optimization approach not using such 'hunches'. Cheng Li 0003, Santu Rana, Sunil Gupta 0001, Vu Nguyen 0001, Svetha Venkatesh, Alessandra Sutti, David Rubin de Celis Leal, Teo Slezak, Murray Height, Mazher Mohammed, Ian Gibson |
ICDM | 6 |
| 2017 | Process-constrained batch Bayesian optimisationabstractAbstract Prevailing batch Bayesian optimisation methods allow all control variables to be freely altered at each iteration. Real-world experiments, however, often have physical limitations making it time-consuming to alter all settings for each recommendation in a batch. This gives rise to a unique problem in BO: in a recommended batch, a set of variables that are expensive to experimentally change need to be fixed, while the remaining control variables can be varied. We formulate this as a process-constrained batch Bayesian optimisation problem. We propose two algorithms, pc-BO(basic) and pc-BO(nested). pc-BO(basic) is simpler but lacks convergence guarantee. In contrast pc-BO(nested) is slightly more complex, but admits convergence analysis. We show that the regret of pc-BO(nested) is sublinear. We demonstrate the performance of both pc-BO(basic) and pc-BO(nested) by optimising benchmark test functions, tuning hyper-parameters of the SVM classifier, optimising the heat-treatment process for an Al-Sc alloy to achieve target hardness, and optimising the short polymer fibre production process. Pratibha Vellanki, Santu Rana, Sunil Gupta 0001, David Rubin, Alessandra Sutti, Thomas Dorin, Murray Height, Paul G. Sanders, Svetha Venkatesh |
NIPS | 5 |