Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
David Reber
dblp:242/9354
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 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
1 paper |
Trustworthy machine learning · 67% Reinforcement learning · 33% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
causal explanation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | RATE: Causal Explainability of Reward Models with Imperfect Counterfactuals · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | RATE: Causal Explainability of Reward Models with Imperfect Counterfactuals · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reward learning
reward modeling |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | RATE: Causal Explainability of Reward Models with Imperfect Counterfactuals · ICML 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
counterfactual rewriting · 0.9causal inference · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | RATE: Causal Explainability of Reward Models with Imperfect CounterfactualsabstractReward models are widely used as proxies for human preferences when aligning or evaluating LLMs. However, reward models are black boxes, and it is often unclear what, exactly, they are actually rewarding. In this paper we develop Rewrite-based Attribute Treatment Estimator (RATE) as an effective method for measuring the sensitivity of a reward model to high-level attributes of responses, such as sentiment, helpfulness, or complexity. Importantly, RATE measures the causal effect of an attribute on the reward. RATE uses LLMs to rewrite responses to produce imperfect counterfactuals examples that can be used to measure causal effects. A key challenge is that these rewrites are imperfect in a manner that can induce substantial bias in the estimated sensitivity of the reward model to the attribute. The core idea of RATE is to adjust for this imperfect-rewrite effect by rewriting twice. We establish the validity of the RATE procedure and show empirically that it is an effective estimator. David Reber, Sean M. Richardson, Todd Nief, Cristina Garbacea, Victor Veitch |
ICML | 1 |