Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jake A. Soloff
dblp:157/1392
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 2 first-author · 3 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
3 papers |
Learning theory · 54% Trustworthy machine learning · 46% |
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
calibration |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Can a calibration metric be both testable and actionable? · COLT 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › calibration
expected calibration error |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Can a calibration metric be both testable and actionable? · COLT 2025 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds
algorithmic stability |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Building a stable classifier with the inflated argmax · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
classification |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Building a stable classifier with the inflated argmax · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › classification
multiclass classification |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Building a stable classifier with the inflated argmax · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Bagging Provides Assumption-free Stability · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › nonparametric regression
isotonic regression |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Can a calibration metric be both testable and actionable? · COLT 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › calibration
post-hoc calibration |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Can a calibration metric be both testable and actionable? · COLT 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
bagging · 1.5decision theory · 0.9resampling · 0.8finite-sample guarantees · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Can a calibration metric be both testable and actionable?abstractForecast probabilities often serve as critical inputs for binary decision making. In such settings, calibration—ensuring forecasted probabilities match empirical frequencies—is essential. Although the common notion of Expected Calibration Error (ECE) provides actionable insights for decision making, it is not testable: it cannot be empirically estimated in many practical cases. Conversely, the recently proposed Distance from Calibration (dCE) is testable, but it is not actionable since it lacks decision-theoretic guarantees needed for high-stakes applications. To resolve this question, we consider Cutoff Calibration Error, a calibration measure that bridges this gap by assessing calibration over intervals of forecasted probabilities. We show that Cutoff Calibration Error is both testable and actionable, and we examine its implications for popular post-hoc calibration methods, such as isotonic regression and Platt scaling. Raphael Rossellini, Jake A. Soloff, Rina Foygel Barber, Zhimei Ren, Rebecca Willett |
COLT | 2 |
| 2024 | Building a stable classifier with the inflated argmaxabstractWe propose a new framework for algorithmic stability in the context of multiclass classification. In practice, classification algorithms often operate by first assigning a continuous score (for instance, an estimated probability) to each possible label, then taking the maximizer---i.e., selecting the class that has the highest score. A drawback of this type of approach is that it is inherently unstable, meaning that it is very sensitive to slight perturbations of the training data, since taking the maximizer is discontinuous. Motivated by this challenge, we propose a pipeline for constructing stable classifiers from data, using bagging (i.e., resampling and averaging) to produce stable continuous scores, and then using a stable relaxation of argmax, which we call the "inflated argmax", to convert these scores to a set of candidate labels. The resulting stability guarantee places no distributional assumptions on the data, does not depend on the number of classes or dimensionality of the covariates, and holds for any base classifier. Using a common benchmark data set, we demonstrate that the inflated argmax provides necessary protection against unstable classifiers, without loss of accuracy. Jake A. Soloff, Rina Foygel Barber, Rebecca Willett |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2024 | Bagging Provides Assumption-free StabilityabstractBagging is an important technique for stabilizing machine learning models. In this paper, we derive a finite-sample guarantee on the stability of bagging for any model. Our result places no assumptions on the distribution of the data, on the properties of the base algorithm, or on the dimensionality of the covariates. Our guarantee applies to many variants of bagging and is optimal up to a constant. Empirical results validate our findings, showing that bagging successfully stabilizes even highly unstable base algorithms. Jake A. Soloff, Rina Foygel Barber, Rebecca Willett |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 1 |