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

Jue Fan

dblp:179/9549 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0002-6755-8258ORCID · corroborated

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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 · 70% Efficient and distributed learning · 30%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Mathematical optimization · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › data selection
data subset selection
0.812024
Deletion-Anticipative Data Selection with a Limited Budget · ICML 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › Data-centric AI
data valuation
0.812024
DeRDaVa: Deletion-Robust Data Valuation for Machine Learning · AAAI 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
machine unlearning
0.812024
DeRDaVa: Deletion-Robust Data Valuation for Machine Learning · AAAI 2024
Mathematical optimization › submodular optimization
submodular maximization
0.212024
Deletion-Anticipative Data Selection with a Limited Budget · ICML 2024

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

risk-averse optimization · 2.3submodularity analysis · 1.5greedy optimization · 1.5shapley value approximation · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 DeRDaVa: Deletion-Robust Data Valuation for Machine Learning
abstract
Data valuation is concerned with determining a fair valuation of data from data sources to compensate them or to identify training examples that are the most or least useful for predictions. With the rising interest in personal data ownership and data protection regulations, model owners will likely have to fulfil more data deletion requests. This raises issues that have not been addressed by existing works: Are the data valuation scores still fair with deletions? Must the scores be expensively recomputed? The answer is no. To avoid recomputations, we propose using our data valuation framework DeRDaVa upfront for valuing each data source's contribution to preserving robust model performance after anticipated data deletions. DeRDaVa can be efficiently approximated and will assign higher values to data that are more useful or less likely to be deleted. We further generalize DeRDaVa to Risk-DeRDaVa to cater to risk-averse/seeking model owners who are concerned with the worst/best-cases model utility. We also empirically demonstrate the practicality of our solutions.
Rachael Hwee Ling Sim, Jue Fan, Kian Hsiang Low
AAAI3
2024 Deletion-Anticipative Data Selection with a Limited Budget
abstract
Learners with a limited budget can use supervised data subset selection and active learning techniques to select a smaller training set and reduce the cost of acquiring data and training machine learning (ML) models. However, the resulting high model performance, measured by a data utility function, may not be preserved when some data owners, enabled by the GDPR’s right to erasure, request their data to be deleted from the ML model. This raises an important question for learners who are temporarily unable or unwilling to acquire data again: During the initial data acquisition of a training set of size $k$, can we proactively maximize the data utility after future unknown deletions? We propose that the learner anticipates/estimates the probability that (i) each data owner in the feasible set will independently delete its data or (ii) a number of deletions occur out of $k$, and justify our proposal with concrete real-world use cases. Then, instead of directly maximizing the data utility function, the learner can maximize the expected or risk-averse post-deletion utility based on the anticipated probabilities. We further propose how to construct these deletion-anticipative data selection ($\texttt{DADS}$) maximization objectives to preserve monotone submodularity and near-optimality of greedy solutions, how to optimize the objectives and empirically evaluate $\texttt{DADS}$’ performance on real-world datasets.
Rachael Hwee Ling Sim, Jue Fan, Patrick Jaillet, Kian Hsiang Low
ICML2
2020 Evaluation of single-cell classifiers for single-cell RNA sequencing data sets
abstract
Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has been rapidly developing and widely applied in biological and medical research. Identification of cell types in scRNA-seq data sets is an essential step before in-depth investigations of their functional and pathological roles. However, the conventional workflow based on clustering and marker genes is not scalable for an increasingly large number of scRNA-seq data sets due to complicated procedures and manual annotation. Therefore, a number of tools have been developed recently to predict cell types in new data sets using reference data sets. These methods have not been generally adapted due to a lack of tool benchmarking and user guidance. In this article, we performed a comprehensive and impartial evaluation of nine classification software tools specifically designed for scRNA-seq data sets. Results showed that Seurat based on random forest, SingleR based on correlation analysis and CaSTLe based on XGBoost performed better than others. A simple ensemble voting of all tools can improve the predictive accuracy. Under nonideal situations, such as small-sized and class-imbalanced reference data sets, tools based on cluster-level similarities have superior performance. However, even with the function of assigning 'unassigned' labels, it is still challenging to catch novel cell types by solely using any of the single-cell classifiers. This article provides a guideline for researchers to select and apply suitable classification tools in their analysis workflows and sheds some lights on potential direction of future improvement on classification tools.
Xinlei Zhao, Jue Fan
Briefings Bioinform.5
2018 An interpretable framework for clustering single-cell RNA-Seq datasets
abstract
BACKGROUND: With the recent proliferation of single-cell RNA-Seq experiments, several methods have been developed for unsupervised analysis of the resulting datasets. These methods often rely on unintuitive hyperparameters and do not explicitly address the subjectivity associated with clustering. RESULTS: In this work, we present DendroSplit, an interpretable framework for analyzing single-cell RNA-Seq datasets that addresses both the clustering interpretability and clustering subjectivity issues. DendroSplit offers a novel perspective on the single-cell RNA-Seq clustering problem motivated by the definition of "cell type", allowing us to cluster using feature selection to uncover multiple levels of biologically meaningful populations in the data. We analyze several landmark single-cell datasets, demonstrating both the method's efficacy and computational efficiency. CONCLUSION: DendroSplit offers a clustering framework that is comparable to existing methods in terms of accuracy and speed but is novel in its emphasis on interpretabilty. We provide the full DendroSplit software package at https://github.com/jessemzhang/dendrosplit .
Jesse M. Zhang, Jue Fan, H. Christina Fan, David Rosenfeld, David Tse
BMC Bioinform.2