Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Tony Cao
dblp:438/7467
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
decision tree |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The Rashomon Set Has It All: Analyzing Trustworthiness of Trees under Multiplicity · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The Rashomon Set Has It All: Analyzing Trustworthiness of Trees under Multiplicity · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The Rashomon Set Has It All: Analyzing Trustworthiness of Trees under Multiplicity · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
rashomon set |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | The Rashomon Set Has It All: Analyzing Trustworthiness of Trees under MultiplicityabstractIn 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 |
NeurIPS | 2 |