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

Nick Obradovich

dblp:162/0083 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0003-1127-2231ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 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
2 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 73% Face, body and person analysis · 27%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.922022
Sensitive loss: Improving accuracy and fairness of face representations with discrimination-aware deep learning · Artif. Intell. 2022
TuringBox: An Experimental Platform for the Evaluation of AI Systems · IJCAI 2018
Computer vision › Face, body and person analysis
face recognition
0.612022
Sensitive loss: Improving accuracy and fairness of face representations with discrimination-aware deep learning · Artif. Intell. 2022
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness › fairness auditing
algorithmic auditing
0.312018
TuringBox: An Experimental Platform for the Evaluation of AI Systems · IJCAI 2018
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.312018
TuringBox: An Experimental Platform for the Evaluation of AI Systems · IJCAI 2018

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

triplet loss · 0.6sensitive triplet generator · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Sensitive loss: Improving accuracy and fairness of face representations with discrimination-aware deep learning
abstract
We propose a discrimination-aware learning method to improve both the accuracy and fairness of biased face recognition algorithms. The most popular face recognition benchmarks assume a distribution of subjects without paying much attention to their demographic attributes. In this work, we perform a comprehensive discrimination-aware experimentation of deep learning-based face recognition. We also propose a notational framework for algorithmic discrimination with application to face biometrics. The experiments include three popular face recognition models and three public databases composed of 64,000 identities from different demographic groups characterized by sex and ethnicity. We experimentally show that learning processes based on the most used face databases have led to popular pre-trained deep face models that present evidence of strong algorithmic discrimination. Finally, we propose a discrimination-aware learning method, Sensitive Loss, based on the popular triplet loss function and a sensitive triplet generator. Our approach works as an add-on to pre-trained networks and is used to improve their performance in terms of average accuracy and fairness. The method shows results comparable to state-of-the-art de-biasing networks and represents a step forward to prevent discriminatory automatic systems.
Ignacio Serna, Aythami Morales, Julian Fierrez, Nick Obradovich
Artif. Intell.4
2021 Nightmare Machine: A Large-Scale Study to Induce Fear Using Artificial Intelligence
Pinar Yanardag Delul, Nick Obradovich, Manuel Cebrián, Iyad Rahwan
ICCC2
2018 TuringBox: An Experimental Platform for the Evaluation of AI Systems
abstract
We introduce TuringBox, a platform to democratize the study of AI. On one side of the platform, AI contributors upload existing and novel algorithms to be studied scientifically by others. On the other side, AI examiners develop and post machine intelligence tasks to evaluate and characterize the outputs of algorithms. We outline the architecture of such a platform, and describe two interactive case studies of algorithmic auditing on the platform.
Ziv Epstein, Blakeley H. Payne, Judy Hanwen Shen, Casey Jisoo Hong, Bjarke Felbo, Abhimanyu Dubey, Matthew Groh, Nick Obradovich, Manuel Cebrián, Iyad Rahwan
IJCAI8