Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Amir Zur
dblp:330/2792
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
2as first author
5since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 1 first-author · 4 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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
4 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 84% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 9% Vision and language · 8% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Accessibility and assistive technology · 100% |
Topics — the 8 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
3.2 | 4 | 2025 | Causal Abstraction: A Theoretical Foundation for Mechanistic Interpretability · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 MIB: A Mechanistic Interpretability Benchmark · ICML 2025 Updating CLIP to Prefer Descriptions Over Captions · EMNLP 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
mechanistic interpretability |
1.7 | 2 | 2025 | Causal Abstraction: A Theoretical Foundation for Mechanistic Interpretability · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 MIB: A Mechanistic Interpretability Benchmark · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
causal explanation |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | Updating CLIP to Prefer Descriptions Over Captions · EMNLP 2024 Causal Proxy Models for Concept-based Model Explanations · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › mechanistic interpretability
causal abstraction |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Causal Abstraction: A Theoretical Foundation for Mechanistic Interpretability · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
causal reasoning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Causal Abstraction: A Theoretical Foundation for Mechanistic Interpretability · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 |
Computer vision › Vision and language › cross-modal alignment
image-text alignment |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Updating CLIP to Prefer Descriptions Over Captions · EMNLP 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
concept-based explanation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Causal Proxy Models for Concept-based Model Explanations · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
counterfactual explanation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Causal Proxy Models for Concept-based Model Explanations · ICML 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
sparse autoencoder · 1.7contrastive language-image pretraining · 1.5distributed alignment search · 0.9causal mediation analysis · 0.9attribution patching · 0.9activation patching · 0.9parameter-efficient finetuning · 0.8parameter-efficient fine-tuning · 0.8proxy model · 0.7causal inference · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | MIB: A Mechanistic Interpretability BenchmarkabstractHow can we know whether new mechanistic interpretability methods achieve real improvements?
In pursuit of lasting evaluation standards, we propose MIB, a Mechanistic Interpretability Benchmark, with two tracks spanning four tasks and five models. MIB favors methods that precisely and concisely recover relevant causal pathways or causal variables in neural language models. The circuit localization track compares methods that locate the model components---and connections between them---most important for performing a task (e.g., attribution patching or information flow routes). The causal variable track compares methods that featurize a hidden vector, e.g., sparse autoencoders (SAE) or distributed alignment search (DAS), and align those features to a task-relevant causal variable. Using MIB, we find that attribution and mask optimization methods perform best on circuit localization. For causal variable localization, we find that the supervised DAS method performs best, while SAEs features are not better than neurons, i.e., non-featurized hidden vectors. These findings illustrate that MIB enables meaningful comparisons, and increases our confidence that there has been real progress in the field. Aaron Mueller, Atticus Geiger, Sarah Wiegreffe, Dana Arad, Iván Arcuschin, Adam Belfki, Yik Siu Chan, Jaden Fiotto-Kaufman, Tal Haklay, Michael Hanna 0001, Rohan Gupta, Yaniv Nikankin, Hadas Orgad, Nikhil Prakash, Anja Reusch, Aruna Sankaranarayanan, Shun Shao, Alessandro Stolfo, Martin Tutek, Amir Zur, David Bau, Yonatan Belinkov |
ICML | 21 |
| 2025 | Causal Abstraction: A Theoretical Foundation for Mechanistic InterpretabilityabstractCausal abstraction provides a theoretical foundation for mechanistic interpretability, the field concerned with providing intelligible algorithms that are faithful simplifications of the known, but opaque low-level details of black box AI models. Our contributions are (1) generalizing the theory of causal abstraction from mechanism replacement (i.e., hard and soft interventions) to arbitrary mechanism transformation (i.e., functionals from old mechanisms to new mechanisms), (2) providing a flexible, yet precise formalization for the core concepts of polysemantic neurons, the linear representation hypothesis, modular features, and graded faithfulness, and (3) unifying a variety of mechanistic interpretability methods in the common language of causal abstraction, namely, activation and path patching, causal mediation analysis, causal scrubbing, causal tracing, circuit analysis, concept erasure, sparse autoencoders, differential binary masking, distributed alignment search, and steering. Atticus Geiger, Duligur Ibeling, Amir Zur, Maheep Chaudhary, Sonakshi Chauhan, Jing Huang 0014, Aryaman Arora, Zhengxuan Wu, Noah D. Goodman, Christopher Potts, Thomas Icard |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 3 |
| 2024 | Updating CLIP to Prefer Descriptions Over CaptionsabstractAlthough CLIPScore is a powerful generic metric that captures the similarity between a text and an image, it fails to distinguish between a caption that is meant to complement the information in an image and a description that is meant to replace an image entirely, e.g., for accessibility.We address this shortcoming by updating the CLIP model with the Concadia dataset to assign higher scores to descriptions than captions using parameter efficient finetuning and a loss objective derived from work on causal interpretability.This model correlates with the judgements of blind and low-vision people while preserving transfer capabilities and has interpretable structure that sheds light on the caption-description distinction.1 Amir Zur, Elisa Kreiss, Karel D'Oosterlinck, Christopher Potts, Atticus Geiger |
EMNLP | 1 |
| 2023 | Meta-Learning for Better Learning: Using Meta-Learning Methods to Automatically Label Exam Questions with Detailed Learning Objectives
Amir Zur, Isaac Applebaum, Jocelyn Nardo, Dory DeWeese, Sameer Sundrani, Shima Salehi |
EDM | 1 |
| 2023 | Causal Proxy Models for Concept-based Model ExplanationsabstractExplainability methods for NLP systems encounter a version of the fundamental problem of causal inference: for a given ground-truth input text, we never truly observe the counterfactual texts necessary for isolating the causal effects of model representations on outputs. In response, many explainability methods make no use of counterfactual texts, assuming they will be unavailable. In this paper, we show that robust causal explainability methods can be created using approximate counterfactuals, which can be written by humans to approximate a specific counterfactual or simply sampled using metadata-guided heuristics. The core of our proposal is the Causal Proxy Model (CPM). A CPM explains a black-box model $\mathcal{N}$ because it is trained to have the same actual input/output behavior as $\mathcal{N}$ while creating neural representations that can be intervened upon to simulate the counterfactual input/output behavior of $\mathcal{N}$. Furthermore, we show that the best CPM for $\mathcal{N}$ performs comparably to $\mathcal{N}$ in making factual predictions, which means that the CPM can simply replace $\mathcal{N}$, leading to more explainable deployed models. Zhengxuan Wu, Karel D'Oosterlinck, Atticus Geiger, Amir Zur, Christopher Potts |
ICML | 4 |