Author name cluster

David R. 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.

6 papers

2 author rows

TMLR Journal 2025 Journal Article

Approximations to worst-case data dropping: unmasking failure modes

Jenny Y. Huang
David R. Burt
Yunyi Shen
Tin D. Nguyen
Tamara Broderick

A data analyst might worry about generalization if dropping a very small fraction of data points from a study could change its substantive conclusions. Checking this non-robustness directly poses a combinatorial optimization problem and is intractable even for simple models and moderate data sizes. Recently various authors have proposed a diverse set of approximations to detect this non-robustness. In the present work, we show that, even in a setting as simple as ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression, many of these approximations can fail to detect (true) non-robustness in realistic data arrangements. We focus on OLS in the present work due its widespread use and since some approximations work only for OLS. Across our synthetic and real-world data sets, we find that a simple recursive greedy algorithm is the sole algorithm that does not fail any of our tests and also that it can be orders of magnitude faster to run than some competitors.

PDF Details

JMLR Journal 2024 Journal Article

Numerically Stable Sparse Gaussian Processes via Minimum Separation using Cover Trees

Alexander Terenin
David R. Burt
Artem Artemev
Seth Flaxman
Mark van der Wilk
Carl Edward Rasmussen
Hong Ge

Gaussian processes are frequently deployed as part of larger machine learning and decision-making systems, for instance in geospatial modeling, Bayesian optimization, or in latent Gaussian models. Within a system, the Gaussian process model needs to perform in a stable and reliable manner to ensure it interacts correctly with other parts of the system. In this work, we study the numerical stability of scalable sparse approximations based on inducing points. To do so, we first review numerical stability, and illustrate typical situations in which Gaussian process models can be unstable. Building on stability theory originally developed in the interpolation literature, we derive sufficient and in certain cases necessary conditions on the inducing points for the computations performed to be numerically stable. For low-dimensional tasks such as geospatial modeling, we propose an automated method for computing inducing points satisfying these conditions. This is done via a modification of the cover tree data structure, which is of independent interest. We additionally propose an alternative sparse approximation for regression with a Gaussian likelihood which trades off a small amount of performance to further improve stability. We provide illustrative examples showing the relationship between stability of calculations and predictive performance of inducing point methods on spatial tasks. [abs] [ pdf ][ bib ] [ code ] &copy JMLR 2024. ( edit, beta )

PDF Details

ICML Conference 2023 Conference Paper

Gaussian processes at the Helm(holtz): A more fluid model for ocean currents

Renato Berlinghieri
Brian L. Trippe
David R. Burt
Ryan James Giordano
Kaushik Srinivasan
Tamay M. Özgökmen
Junfei Xia
Tamara Broderick

Oceanographers are interested in predicting ocean currents and identifying divergences in a current vector field based on sparse observations of buoy velocities. Since we expect current dynamics to be smooth but highly non-linear, Gaussian processes (GPs) offer an attractive model. But we show that applying a GP with a standard stationary kernel directly to buoy data can struggle at both current prediction and divergence identification – due to some physically unrealistic prior assumptions. To better reflect known physical properties of currents, we propose to instead put a standard stationary kernel on the divergence and curl-free components of a vector field obtained through a Helmholtz decomposition. We show that, because this decomposition relates to the original vector field just via mixed partial derivatives, we can still perform inference given the original data with only a small constant multiple of additional computational expense. We illustrate the benefits of our method on synthetic and real oceans data.

Details

ICML Conference 2021 Conference Paper

Tighter Bounds on the Log Marginal Likelihood of Gaussian Process Regression Using Conjugate Gradients

Artem Artemev
David R. Burt
Mark van der Wilk

We propose a lower bound on the log marginal likelihood of Gaussian process regression models that can be computed without matrix factorisation of the full kernel matrix. We show that approximate maximum likelihood learning of model parameters by maximising our lower bound retains many benefits of the sparse variational approach while reducing the bias introduced into hyperparameter learning. The basis of our bound is a more careful analysis of the log-determinant term appearing in the log marginal likelihood, as well as using the method of conjugate gradients to derive tight lower bounds on the term involving a quadratic form. Our approach is a step forward in unifying methods relying on lower bound maximisation (e. g. variational methods) and iterative approaches based on conjugate gradients for training Gaussian processes. In experiments, we show improved predictive performance with our model for a comparable amount of training time compared to other conjugate gradient based approaches.

Details

JMLR Journal 2020 Journal Article

Convergence of Sparse Variational Inference in Gaussian Processes Regression

David R. Burt
Carl Edward Rasmussen
Mark van der Wilk

Gaussian processes are distributions over functions that are versatile and mathematically convenient priors in Bayesian modelling. However, their use is often impeded for data with large numbers of observations, $N$, due to the cubic (in $N$) cost of matrix operations used in exact inference. Many solutions have been proposed that rely on $M \ll N$ inducing variables to form an approximation at a cost of $\mathcal{O}\left(NM^2\right)$. While the computational cost appears linear in $N$, the true complexity depends on how $M$ must scale with $N$ to ensure a certain quality of the approximation. In this work, we investigate upper and lower bounds on how $M$ needs to grow with $N$ to ensure high quality approximations. We show that we can make the KL-divergence between the approximate model and the exact posterior arbitrarily small for a Gaussian-noise regression model with $M \ll N$. Specifically, for the popular squared exponential kernel and $D$-dimensional Gaussian distributed covariates, $M = \mathcal{O}((\log N)^D)$ suffice and a method with an overall computational cost of $\mathcal{O}\left(N(\log N)^{2D}(\log \log N)^2\right)$ can be used to perform inference. [abs] [ pdf ][ bib ] [ code ] &copy JMLR 2020. ( edit, beta )

PDF Details

ICML Conference 2019 Conference Paper

Rates of Convergence for Sparse Variational Gaussian Process Regression

David R. Burt
Carl E. Rasmussen
Mark van der Wilk

Excellent variational approximations to Gaussian process posteriors have been developed which avoid the $\mathcal{O}\left(N^3\right)$ scaling with dataset size $N$. They reduce the computational cost to $\mathcal{O}\left(NM^2\right)$, with $M\ll N$ the number of inducing variables, which summarise the process. While the computational cost seems to be linear in $N$, the true complexity of the algorithm depends on how $M$ must increase to ensure a certain quality of approximation. We show that with high probability the KL divergence can be made arbitrarily small by growing $M$ more slowly than $N$. A particular case is that for regression with normally distributed inputs in D-dimensions with the Squared Exponential kernel, $M=\mathcal{O}(\log^D N)$ suffices. Our results show that as datasets grow, Gaussian process posteriors can be approximated cheaply, and provide a concrete rule for how to increase $M$ in continual learning scenarios.

Details