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

Tony Cao

dblp:438/7467 · 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 · 75% Kernel, tree and ensemble methods · 25%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
decision tree
0.912025
The Rashomon Set Has It All: Analyzing Trustworthiness of Trees under Multiplicity · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.912025
The Rashomon Set Has It All: Analyzing Trustworthiness of Trees under Multiplicity · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.912025
The Rashomon Set Has It All: Analyzing Trustworthiness of Trees under Multiplicity · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
rashomon set
0.912025
The Rashomon Set Has It All: Analyzing Trustworthiness of Trees under Multiplicity · NeurIPS 2025

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

sparse decision tree · 0.9rashomon set enumeration · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 The Rashomon Set Has It All: Analyzing Trustworthiness of Trees under Multiplicity
abstract
In practice, many models from a function class can fit a dataset almost equally well. This collection of near-optimal models is known as the Rashomon set. Prior work has shown that the Rashomon set offers flexibility in choosing models aligned with secondary objectives like interpretability or fairness. However, it is unclear how far this flexibility extends to different trustworthy criteria, especially given that most trustworthy machine learning systems today still rely on complex specialized optimization procedures. *Is the Rashomon set all you need for trustworthy model selection? Can simply searching the Rashomon set suffice to find models that are not only accurate but also fair, stable, robust, or private, without explicitly optimizing for these criteria?*In this paper, we introduce a framework for systematically analyzing trustworthiness within Rashomon sets and conduct extensive experiments on high-stakes tabular datasets. We focus on sparse decision trees, where the Rashomon set can be fully enumerated. Across seven distinct metrics, we find that the Rashomon set almost always contains models that match or exceed the performance of state-of-the-art methods specifically designed to optimize individual trustworthiness criteria. These results suggest that for many practical applications, computing the Rashomon set once can serve as an efficient and effective method for identifying highly accurate and trustworthy models. Our framework can be a valuable tool for both benchmarking Rashomon sets of decision trees and studying the trustworthiness properties of interpretable models.
Ethan Hsu, Tony Cao, Lesia Semenova, Chudi Zhong
NeurIPS2