Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Xuehui Sun
dblp:29/8818
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Graphics, 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.
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Database theory · 50% Machine learning and data management · 50% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Trustworthy machine learning · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning and data management
data valuation |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Scalability vs. Utility: Do We Have To Sacrifice One for the Other in Data Importance Quantification? · CVPR 2021 |
Database theory
shapley value computation |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Scalability vs. Utility: Do We Have To Sacrifice One for the Other in Data Importance Quantification? · CVPR 2021 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
Data-centric AI |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Scalability vs. Utility: Do We Have To Sacrifice One for the Other in Data Importance Quantification? · CVPR 2021 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › learning with noisy labels
noisy label detection |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Scalability vs. Utility: Do We Have To Sacrifice One for the Other in Data Importance Quantification? · CVPR 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
shapley value approximation · 1.0pretrained feature embeddings · 1.0KNN surrogate · 1.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Scalability vs. Utility: Do We Have To Sacrifice One for the Other in Data Importance Quantification?abstractQuantifying the importance of each training point to a learning task is a fundamental problem in machine learning and the estimated importance scores have been leveraged to guide a range of data workflows such as data summarization and domain adaption. One simple idea is to use the leave-one-out error of each training point to indicate its importance. Recent work has also proposed to use the Shapley value, as it defines a unique value distribution scheme that satisfies a set of appealing properties. However, calculating Shapley values is often expensive, which limits its applicability in real-world applications at scale. Multiple heuristics to improve the scalability of calculating Shapley values have been proposed recently, with the potential risk of compromising their utility in real-world applications.How well do existing data quantification methods perform on existing workflows? How do these methods compare with each other, empirically and theoretically? Must we sacrifice scalability for the utility in these workflows when using these methods? In this paper, we conduct a novel theoretical analysis comparing the utility of different importance quantification methods, and report extensive experimental studies on existing and proposed workflows such as noisy label detection, watermark removal, data summarization, data acquisition, and domain adaptation. We show that Shapley value approximation based on a KNN surrogate over pretrained feature embeddings obtains comparable utility with existing algorithms while achieving significant scalability improvement, often by orders of magnitude. Our theoretical analysis also justifies its advantage over the leave-one-out error.The code is available at https://github.com/AIsecure/Shapley-Study. Ruoxi Jia 0001, Fan Wu 0011, Xuehui Sun, Jiacen Xu 0001, David Dao, Bhavya Kailkhura, Ce Zhang 0001, Bo Li 0026, Dawn Song |
CVPR | 3 |