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

David Reber

dblp:242/9354 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
causal explanation
0.912025
RATE: Causal Explainability of Reward Models with Imperfect Counterfactuals · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.912025
RATE: Causal Explainability of Reward Models with Imperfect Counterfactuals · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reward learning
reward modeling
0.912025
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 RATE: Causal Explainability of Reward Models with Imperfect Counterfactuals
abstract
Reward 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
ICML1