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

Sumantrak Mukherjee

dblp:367/0908 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as 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 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 · 93% Optimization for machine learning · 7%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
explainable AI
0.912025
X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.912025
X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.912025
X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
model multiplicity
0.912025
X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
multi-objective optimization
0.312025
X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025

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

bayesian optimization · 0.9automated machine learning · 0.9SHAP values · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML
abstract
Explainable AI (XAI) and interpretable machine learning methods help to build trust in model predictions and derived insights, yet also present a perverse incentive for analysts to manipulate XAI metrics to support pre-specified conclusions. This paper introduces the concept of X-hacking, a form of p-hacking applied to XAI metrics such as Shap values. We show how easily an automated machine learning pipeline can be adapted to exploit model multiplicity at scale: searching a set of defensible’ models with similar predictive performance to find a desired explanation. We formulate the trade-off between explanation and accuracy as a multi-objective optimisation problem, and illustrate empirically on familiar real-world datasets that, on average, Bayesian optimisation accelerates X-hacking 3-fold for features susceptible to it, versus random sampling. We show the vulnerability of a dataset to X-hacking can be determined by information redundancy among features. Finally, we suggest possible methods for detection and prevention, and discuss ethical implications for the credibility and reproducibility of XAI.
Sumantrak Mukherjee, Andrea Sipka, Eyke Hüllermeier, Sebastian J. Vollmer, Sergey Redyuk, David Antony Selby
ICML2