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

Christina Chen

dblp:278/2847 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 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 · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Medical and health informatics · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.612022
Diagnosing failures of fairness transfer across distribution shift in real-world medical settings · NeurIPS 2022
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness
0.612022
Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learning · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2022
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
underspecification
0.612022
Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learning · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2022
Medical and health informatics › clinical informatics › clinical AI
clinical machine learning
0.212022
Diagnosing failures of fairness transfer across distribution shift in real-world medical settings · NeurIPS 2022

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

conditional independence test · 1.1causal inference · 1.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Diagnosing failures of fairness transfer across distribution shift in real-world medical settings
abstract
Diagnosing and mitigating changes in model fairness under distribution shift is an important component of the safe deployment of machine learning in healthcare settings. Importantly, the success of any mitigation strategy strongly depends on the \textit{structure} of the shift. Despite this, there has been little discussion of how to empirically assess the structure of a distribution shift that one is encountering in practice. In this work, we adopt a causal framing to motivate conditional independence tests as a key tool for characterizing distribution shifts. Using our approach in two medical applications, we show that this knowledge can help diagnose failures of fairness transfer, including cases where real-world shifts are more complex than is often assumed in the literature. Based on these results, we discuss potential remedies at each step of the machine learning pipeline.
Jessica Schrouff, Natalie Harris, Oluwasanmi Koyejo, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Eva Schnider, Krista Opsahl-Ong, Alexander Brown, Subhrajit Roy, Diana Mincu, Christina Chen, Awa Dieng, Vivek Natarajan, Alan Karthikesalingam, Katherine A. Heller, Silvia Chiappa, Alexander D'Amour
NeurIPS10
2022 Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learning
abstract
Machine learning (ML) systems often exhibit unexpectedly poor behavior when they are deployed in real-world domains. We identify underspecification in ML pipelines as a key reason for these failures. An ML pipeline is the full procedure followed to train and validate a predictor. Such a pipeline is underspecified when it can return many distinct predictors with equivalently strong test performance. Underspecification is common in modern ML pipelines that primarily validate predictors on held-out data that follow the same distribution as the training data. Predictors returned by underspecified pipelines are often treated as equivalent based on their training domain performance, but we show here that such predictors can behave very differently in deployment domains. This ambiguity can lead to instability and poor model behavior in practice, and is a distinct failure mode from previously identified issues arising from structural mismatch between training and deployment domains. We provide evidence that underspecfication has substantive implications for practical ML pipelines, using examples from computer vision, medical imaging, natural language processing, clinical risk prediction based on electronic health records, and medical genomics. Our results show the need to explicitly account for underspecification in modeling pipelines that are intended for real-world deployment in any domain.
Alexander D'Amour, Katherine A. Heller, Dan Moldovan, Ben Adlam, Babak Alipanahi, Alex Beutel, Christina Chen, Jonathan Deaton, Jacob Eisenstein, Matthew Hoffman 0001, Farhad Hormozdiari, Neil Houlsby, Shaobo Hou, Ghassen Jerfel, Alan Karthikesalingam, Mario Lucic, Yi-An Ma, Cory Y. McLean, Diana Mincu, Akinori Mitani, Andrea Montanari, Zachary Nado, Vivek Natarajan, Christopher Nielson, Thomas F. Osborne, Rajiv Raman 0003, Kim Ramasamy, Rory Sayres, Jessica Schrouff, Martin G. Seneviratne, Shannon Sequeira, Harini Suresh, Victor Veitch, Max Vladymyrov, Xuezhi Wang 0002, Kellie Webster, Steve Yadlowsky, Taedong Yun, Xiaohua Zhai, D. Sculley
J. Mach. Learn. Res.7