Author name cluster

David Burt

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

4 papers

1 author row

NeurIPS Conference 2025 Conference Paper

Smooth Sailing: Lipschitz-Driven Uncertainty Quantification for Spatial Associations

David Burt
Renato Berlinghieri
Stephen Bates
Tamara Broderick

Estimating associations between spatial covariates and responses — rather than merely predicting responses — is central to environmental science, epidemiology, and economics. For instance, public health officials might be interested in whether air pollution has a strictly positive association with a health outcome, and the magnitude of any effect. Standard machine learning methods often provide accurate predictions but offer limited insight into covariate-response relationships. And we show that existing methods for constructing confidence (or credible) intervals for associations can fail to provide nominal coverage in the face of model misspecification and nonrandom locations — despite both being essentially always present in spatial problems. We introduce a method that constructs valid frequentist confidence intervals for associations in spatial settings. Our method requires minimal assumptions beyond a form of spatial smoothness and a homoskedastic Gaussian error assumption. In particular, we do not require model correctness or covariate overlap between training and target locations. Our approach is the first to guarantee nominal coverage in this setting and outperforms existing techniques in both real and simulated experiments. Our confidence intervals are valid in finite samples when the noise of the Gaussian error is known, and we provide an asymptotically consistent estimation procedure for this noise variance when it is unknown.

PDF Details

NeurIPS Conference 2022 Conference Paper

Sparse Gaussian Process Hyperparameters: Optimize or Integrate?

Vidhi Lalchand
Wessel Bruinsma
David Burt
Carl Edward Rasmussen

The kernel function and its hyperparameters are the central model selection choice in a Gaussian process (Rasmussen and Williams, 2006). Typically, the hyperparameters of the kernel are chosen by maximising the marginal likelihood, an approach known as Type-II maximum likelihood (ML-II). However, ML-II does not account for hyperparameter uncertainty, and it is well-known that this can lead to severely biased estimates and an underestimation of predictive uncertainty. While there are several works which employ fully Bayesian characterisation of GPs, relatively few propose such approaches for the sparse GPs paradigm. In this work we propose an algorithm for sparse Gaussian process regression which leverages MCMC to sample from the hyperparameter posterior within the variational inducing point framework of (Titsias, 2009). This work is closely related to (Hensman et al, 2015b) but side-steps the need to sample the inducing points, thereby significantly improving sampling efficiency in the Gaussian likelihood case. We compare this scheme against natural baselines in literature along with stochastic variational GPs (SVGPs) along with an extensive computational analysis.

PDF Details

NeurIPS Conference 2021 Conference Paper

How Tight Can PAC-Bayes be in the Small Data Regime?

Andrew Foong
Wessel Bruinsma
David Burt
Richard Turner

In this paper, we investigate the question: _Given a small number of datapoints, for example $N = 30$, how tight can PAC-Bayes and test set bounds be made? _ For such small datasets, test set bounds adversely affect generalisation performance by withholding data from the training procedure. In this setting, PAC-Bayes bounds are especially attractive, due to their ability to use all the data to simultaneously learn a posterior and bound its generalisation risk. We focus on the case of i. i. d. data with a bounded loss and consider the generic PAC-Bayes theorem of Germain et al. While their theorem is known to recover many existing PAC-Bayes bounds, it is unclear what the tightest bound derivable from their framework is. For a fixed learning algorithm and dataset, we show that the tightest possible bound coincides with a bound considered by Catoni; and, in the more natural case of distributions over datasets, we establish a lower bound on the best bound achievable in expectation. Interestingly, this lower bound recovers the Chernoff test set bound if the posterior is equal to the prior. Moreover, to illustrate how tight these bounds can be, we study synthetic one-dimensional classification tasks in which it is feasible to meta-learn both the prior and the form of the bound to numerically optimise for the tightest bounds possible. We find that in this simple, controlled scenario, PAC-Bayes bounds are competitive with comparable, commonly used Chernoff test set bounds. However, the sharpest test set bounds still lead to better guarantees on the generalisation error than the PAC-Bayes bounds we consider.

PDF Details

NeurIPS Conference 2020 Conference Paper

On the Expressiveness of Approximate Inference in Bayesian Neural Networks

Andrew Foong
David Burt
Yingzhen Li
Richard Turner

While Bayesian neural networks (BNNs) hold the promise of being flexible, well-calibrated statistical models, inference often requires approximations whose consequences are poorly understood. We study the quality of common variational methods in approximating the Bayesian predictive distribution. For single-hidden layer ReLU BNNs, we prove a fundamental limitation in function-space of two of the most commonly used distributions defined in weight-space: mean-field Gaussian and Monte Carlo dropout. We find there are simple cases where neither method can have substantially increased uncertainty in between well-separated regions of low uncertainty. We provide strong empirical evidence that exact inference does not have this pathology, hence it is due to the approximation and not the model. In contrast, for deep networks, we prove a universality result showing that there exist approximate posteriors in the above classes which provide flexible uncertainty estimates. However, we find empirically that pathologies of a similar form as in the single-hidden layer case can persist when performing variational inference in deeper networks. Our results motivate careful consideration of the implications of approximate inference methods in BNNs.

PDF Details