Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Samuel Yeom
dblp:206/6544
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 2 first-authorSecurity and privacy · 2 · 2 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author
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 · 100% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness |
0.8 | 2 | 2020 | Individual Fairness Revisited: Transferring Techniques from Adversarial Robustness · IJCAI 2020 Hunting for Discriminatory Proxies in Linear Regression Models · NeurIPS 2018 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
individual fairness |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Individual Fairness Revisited: Transferring Techniques from Adversarial Robustness · IJCAI 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness › fairness auditing
discrimination discovery |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Hunting for Discriminatory Proxies in Linear Regression Models · NeurIPS 2018 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Hunting for Discriminatory Proxies in Linear Regression Models · NeurIPS 2018 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial robustness |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Individual Fairness Revisited: Transferring Techniques from Adversarial Robustness · IJCAI 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Individual Fairness Revisited: Transferring Techniques from Adversarial Robustness · IJCAI 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
randomized smoothing · 0.4second-order cone programming · 0.3correlation analysis · 0.3causal influence · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Learning Fair Representations for Kernel ModelsabstractFair representations are a powerful tool for establishing criteria like statistical parity, proxy non-discrimination, and equality of opportunity in learned models. Existing techniques for learning these representations are typically model-agnostic, as they preprocess the original data such that the output satisfies some fairness criterion, and can be used with arbitrary learning methods. In contrast, we demonstrate the promise of learning a model-aware fair representation, focusing on kernel-based models. We leverage the classical Sufficient Dimension Reduction (SDR) framework to construct representations as subspaces of the reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS), whose member functions are guaranteed to satisfy fairness. Our method supports several fairness criteria, continuous and discrete data, and multiple protected attributes. We further show how to calibrate the accuracy tradeoff by characterizing it in terms of the principal angles between subspaces of the RKHS. Finally, we apply our approach to obtain the first Fair Gaussian Process (FGP) prior for fair Bayesian learning, and show that it is competitive with, and in some cases outperforms, state-of-the-art methods on real data. Zilong Tan, Samuel Yeom, Matt Fredrikson, Ameet Talwalkar |
AISTATS | 2 |
| 2020 | Individual Fairness Revisited: Transferring Techniques from Adversarial RobustnessabstractWe turn the definition of individual fairness on its head - rather than ascertaining the fairness of a model given a predetermined metric, we find a metric for a given model that satisfies individual fairness. This can facilitate the discussion on the fairness of a model, addressing the issue that it may be difficult to specify a priori a suitable metric. Our contributions are twofold: First, we introduce the definition of a minimal metric and characterize the behavior of models in terms of minimal metrics. Second, for more complicated models, we apply the mechanism of randomized smoothing from adversarial robustness to make them individually fair under a given weighted Lp metric. Our experiments show that adapting the minimal metrics of linear models to more complicated neural networks can lead to meaningful and interpretable fairness guarantees at little cost to utility. Samuel Yeom, Matt Fredrikson |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2020 | Overfitting, robustness, and malicious algorithms: A study of potential causes of privacy risk in machine learningabstractMachine learning algorithms, when applied to sensitive data, pose a distinct threat to privacy. A growing body of prior work demonstrates that models produced by these algorithms may leak specific private information in the training data to an attacker, either through the models’ structure or their observable behavior. This article examines the factors that can allow a training set membership inference attacker or an attribute inference attacker to learn such information. Using both formal and empirical analyses, we illustrate a clear relationship between these factors and the privacy risk that arises in several popular machine learning algorithms. We find that overfitting is sufficient to allow an attacker to perform membership inference and, when the target attribute meets certain conditions about its influence, attribute inference attacks. We also explore the connection between membership inference and attribute inference, showing that there are deep connections between the two that lead to effective new attacks. We show that overfitting is not necessary for these attacks, demonstrating that other factors, such as robustness to norm-bounded input perturbations and malicious training algorithms, can also significantly increase the privacy risk. Notably, as robustness is intended to be a defense against attacks on the integrity of model predictions, these results suggest it may be difficult in some cases to simultaneously defend against privacy and integrity attacks. Samuel Yeom, Irene Giacomelli, Alan Menaged, Matt Fredrikson, Somesh Jha |
J. Comput. Secur. | 1 |
| 2018 | Privacy Risk in Machine Learning: Analyzing the Connection to OverfittingabstractMachine learning algorithms, when applied to sensitive data, pose a distinct threat to privacy. A growing body of prior work demonstrates that models produced by these algorithms may leak specific private information in the training data to an attacker, either through the models' structure or their observable behavior. However, the underlying cause of this privacy risk is not well understood beyond a handful of anecdotal accounts that suggest overfitting and influence might play a role. This paper examines the effect that overfitting and influence have on the ability of an attacker to learn information about the training data from machine learning models, either through training set membership inference or attribute inference attacks. Using both formal and empirical analyses, we illustrate a clear relationship between these factors and the privacy risk that arises in several popular machine learning algorithms. We find that overfitting is sufficient to allow an attacker to perform membership inference and, when the target attribute meets certain conditions about its influence, attribute inference attacks. Interestingly, our formal analysis also shows that overfitting is not necessary for these attacks and begins to shed light on what other factors may be in play. Finally, we explore the connection between membership inference and attribute inference, showing that there are deep connections between the two that lead to effective new attacks. Samuel Yeom, Irene Giacomelli, Matt Fredrikson, Somesh Jha |
CSF | 1 |
| 2018 | Hunting for Discriminatory Proxies in Linear Regression ModelsabstractA machine learning model may exhibit discrimination when used to make decisions involving people. One potential cause for such outcomes is that the model uses a statistical proxy for a protected demographic attribute. In this paper we formulate a definition of proxy use for the setting of linear regression and present algorithms for detecting proxies. Our definition follows recent work on proxies in classification models, and characterizes a model's constituent behavior that: 1) correlates closely with a protected random variable, and 2) is causally influential in the overall behavior of the model. We show that proxies in linear regression models can be efficiently identified by solving a second-order cone program, and further extend this result to account for situations where the use of a certain input variable is justified as a ``business necessity''. Finally, we present empirical results on two law enforcement datasets that exhibit varying degrees of racial disparity in prediction outcomes, demonstrating that proxies shed useful light on the causes of discriminatory behavior in models. Samuel Yeom, Anupam Datta, Matt Fredrikson |
NeurIPS | 1 |