Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Leslie Rice
dblp:190/7167
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial robustness |
1.6 | 3 | 2023 | (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 |
1.4 | 3 | 2021 | 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 |
0.9 | 2 | 2020 | 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 |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | (Certified!!) Adversarial Robustness for Free! · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
model compression |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | (Certified!!) Adversarial Robustness for Free! · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference
partition function estimation |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Robustness between the worst and average case · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › sampling
transition path sampling |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Robustness between the worst and average case · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › regularization
early stopping |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Overfitting in adversarially robust deep learning · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › adversarial robustness › adversarial training
fast adversarial training |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Fast is better than free: Revisiting adversarial training · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
overfitting |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Overfitting in adversarially robust deep learning · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
regularization |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | (Certified!!) Adversarial Robustness for Free!
Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham, Leslie Rice, Mingjie Sun, J. Zico Kolter |
ICLR | 4 |
| 2021 | Robustness between the worst and average caseabstractSeveral 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 |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2020 | Fast is better than free: Revisiting adversarial training
Eric Wong 0001, Leslie Rice, J. Zico Kolter |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2020 | Overfitting in adversarially robust deep learningabstractIt 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 |
ICML | 1 |
| 2017 | Generating Families of Practical Fast Matrix Multiplication AlgorithmsabstractMatrix 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 |
IPDPS | 2 |