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

Leslie Rice

dblp:190/7167 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 1

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 · 62% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 13% Deep learning architectures and training · 11%

Topics — the 11 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial robustness
1.632023
(Certified!!) Adversarial Robustness for Free! · ICLR 2023
Robustness between the worst and average case · NeurIPS 2021
Overfitting in adversarially robust deep learning · ICML 2020
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness
1.432021
Robustness between the worst and average case · NeurIPS 2021
Overfitting in adversarially robust deep learning · ICML 2020
Fast is better than free: Revisiting adversarial training · ICLR 2020
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › adversarial robustness
adversarial training
0.922020
Overfitting in adversarially robust deep learning · ICML 2020
Fast is better than free: Revisiting adversarial training · ICLR 2020
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
certified robustness
0.712023
(Certified!!) Adversarial Robustness for Free! · ICLR 2023
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
model compression
0.712023
(Certified!!) Adversarial Robustness for Free! · ICLR 2023
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference
partition function estimation
0.512021
Robustness between the worst and average case · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › sampling
transition path sampling
0.512021
Robustness between the worst and average case · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › regularization
early stopping
0.412020
Overfitting in adversarially robust deep learning · ICML 2020
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › adversarial robustness › adversarial training
fast adversarial training
0.412020
Fast is better than free: Revisiting adversarial training · ICLR 2020
Machine learning › Learning theory
overfitting
0.412020
Overfitting in adversarially robust deep learning · ICML 2020
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
regularization
0.412020
Overfitting in adversarially robust deep learning · ICML 2020

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

randomized smoothing · 0.7metropolis-hastings · 0.5hamiltonian monte carlo · 0.5MCMC · 0.5regularization · 0.4early stopping · 0.4data augmentation · 0.4adversarial training · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 (Certified!!) Adversarial Robustness for Free!
Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham, Leslie Rice, Mingjie Sun, J. Zico Kolter
ICLR4
2021 Robustness between the worst and average case
abstract
Several recent works in machine learning have focused on evaluating the test-time robustness of a classifier: how well the classifier performs not just on the target domain it was trained upon, but upon perturbed examples. In these settings, the focus has largely been on two extremes of robustness: the robustness to perturbations drawn at random from within some distribution (i.e., robustness to random perturbations), and the robustness to the worst case perturbation in some set (i.e., adversarial robustness). In this paper, we argue that a sliding scale between these two extremes provides a valuable additional metric by which to gauge robustness. Specifically, we illustrate that each of these two extremes is naturally characterized by a (functional) q-norm over perturbation space, with q=1 corresponding to robustness to random perturbations and q=\infty corresponding to adversarial perturbations. We then present the main technical contribution of our paper: a method for efficiently estimating the value of these norms by interpreting them as the partition function of a particular distribution, then using path sampling with MCMC methods to estimate this partition function (either traditional Metropolis-Hastings for non-differentiable perturbations, or Hamiltonian Monte Carlo for differentiable perturbations). We show that our approach provides substantially better estimates than simple random sampling of the actual “intermediate-q” robustness of both standard, data-augmented, and adversarially-trained classifiers, illustrating a clear tradeoff between classifiers that optimize different metrics. Code for reproducing experiments can be found at https://github.com/locuslab/intermediate_robustness.
Leslie Rice, Anna Bair, Huan Zhang 0001, J. Zico Kolter
NeurIPS1
2020 Fast is better than free: Revisiting adversarial training
Eric Wong 0001, Leslie Rice, J. Zico Kolter
ICLR2
2020 Overfitting in adversarially robust deep learning
abstract
It is common practice in deep learning to use overparameterized networks and train for as long as possible; there are numerous studies that show, both theoretically and empirically, that such practices surprisingly do not unduly harm the generalization performance of the classifier. In this paper, we empirically study this phenomenon in the setting of adversarially trained deep networks, which are trained to minimize the loss under worst-case adversarial perturbations. We find that overfitting to the training set does in fact harm robust performance to a very large degree in adversarially robust training across multiple datasets (SVHN, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and ImageNet) and perturbation models (L-infinity and L-2). Based upon this observed effect, we show that the performance gains of virtually all recent algorithmic improvements upon adversarial training can be matched by simply using early stopping. We also show that effects such as the double descent curve do still occur in adversarially trained models, yet fail to explain the observed overfitting. Finally, we study several classical and modern deep learning remedies for overfitting, including regularization and data augmentation, and find that no approach in isolation improves significantly upon the gains achieved by early stopping. All code for reproducing the experiments as well as pretrained model weights and training logs can be found at https://github.com/ locuslab/robust_overfitting.
Leslie Rice, Eric Wong 0001, J. Zico Kolter
ICML1
2017 Generating Families of Practical Fast Matrix Multiplication Algorithms
abstract
Matrix multiplication (GEMM) is a core operation to numerous scientific applications. Traditional implementations of Strassen-like fast matrix multiplication (FMM) algorithms often do not perform well except for very large matrix sizes, due to the increased cost of memory movement, which is particularly noticeable for non-square matrices. Such implementations also require considerable workspace and modifications to the standard BLAS interface. We propose a code generator framework to automatically implement a large family of FMM algorithms suitable for multiplications of arbitrary matrix sizes and shapes. By representing FMM with a triple of matrices [U, V, W] that capture the linear combinations of submatrices that are formed, we can use the Kronecker product to define a multi-level representation of Strassen-like algorithms. Incorporating the matrix additions that must be performed for Strassen-like algorithms into the inherent packing and micro-kernel operations inside GEMM avoids extra workspace and reduces the cost of memory movement. Adopting the same loop structures as high-performance GEMM implementations allows parallelization of all FMM algorithms with simple but efficient data parallelism without the overhead of task parallelism. We present a simple performance model for general FMM algorithms and compare actual performance of 20+ FMM algorithms to modeled predictions. Our implementations demonstrate a performance benefit over conventional GEMM on single core and multi-core systems. This study shows that Strassen-like fast matrix multiplication can be incorporated into libraries for practical use.
Leslie Rice, Devin Matthews, Robert A. van de Geijn
IPDPS2