REVIEW 4 cited by
Neural Density Estimation and Likelihood-free Inference
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
I consider two problems in machine learning and statistics: the problem of estimating the joint probability density of a collection of random variables, known as density estimation, and the problem of inferring model parameters when their likelihood is intractable, known as likelihood-free inference. The contribution of the thesis is a set of new methods for addressing these problems that are based on recent advances in neural networks and deep learning.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
A Convex Approximation Framework for Neural Likelihood-Based Bayesian Inverse Problems
By folding normalization into a KL-based objective over un-normalized potentials, neural likelihood approximation becomes a strictly convex problem with provable consistency.
-
Search for new scalars via $X \rightarrow SH \rightarrow b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
No excess over background is found in ATLAS's first search for X→SH→4b, which sets 95% CL upper limits of 0.7 fb–2.6 pb on the production cross-section times branching ratio.
-
Implicit Likelihood Inference of the Neutrino Mass Hierarchy from Cosmological Data
A simulation-based neural-likelihood analysis of Planck 2018 and DESI DR2 data reports a weak preference (tilde_Delta = 0.12, 68% CL interval spanning both signs) for the normal neutrino mass hierarchy.
-
Position: The Future of Bayesian Prediction Is Prior-Fitted
PFNs, which amortize Bayesian inference by training on datasets sampled from a prior, are likely to supersede MCMC and variational inference for most prediction tasks, the authors argue.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.