Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Naama Boer
dblp:242/5140
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2 · 1 first-author
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
2 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 93% Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 7% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers |
Data models and query languages · 54% Data integration and cleaning · 46% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.8 | 2 | 2020 | Personal Insights for Altering Decisions of Tree-based Ensembles over Time · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2020 Just in Time: Personal Temporal Insights for Altering Model Decisions · ICDE 2019 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › counterfactual explanation
algorithmic recourse |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Personal Insights for Altering Decisions of Tree-based Ensembles over Time · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
counterfactual explanation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Just in Time: Personal Temporal Insights for Altering Model Decisions · ICDE 2019 |
Data models and query languages
constraint databases |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Personal Insights for Altering Decisions of Tree-based Ensembles over Time · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2020 |
Data integration and cleaning
model management |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Just in Time: Personal Temporal Insights for Altering Model Decisions · ICDE 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
tree-based ensemble · 0.9constraint databases · 0.9model prediction · 0.8database querying · 0.8counterfactual explanation · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Personal Insights for Altering Decisions of Tree-based Ensembles over TimeabstractMachine Learning models are prevalent in critical human-related decision making, such as resume filtering and loan applications. Refused individuals naturally ask what could change the decision, should they reapply. This question is hard for the model owner to answer: first, the model is typically complex and not easily interpretable; second, models may be updated periodically; and last, attributes of the individual seeking approval are apt to change in time. While each of these challenges have been extensively studied in isolation, their conjunction has not. To this end, we propose a novel framework that allows users to devise a plan of action to individuals in presence of Machine Learning classification, where both the ML model and the user properties are expected to change over time. Our technical solution is currently confined to a particular yet important class of models, namely those of tree-based ensembles (Random Forests, Gradient Boosted trees). In this setting it uniquely combines state-of-the-art solutions for single model interpretation, domain adaptation techniques for predicting future models, and constraint databases to represent and query the space of possible actions. We devise efficient algorithms that leverage these foundations in a novel solution, and experimentally show that they are effective in proposing useful and actionable steps leading to the desired classification. Nave Frost, Naama Boer, Daniel Deutch, Tova Milo |
Proc. VLDB Endow. | 2 |
| 2019 | Just in Time: Personal Temporal Insights for Altering Model DecisionsabstractThe interpretability of complex Machine Learning models is coming to be a critical social concern, as they are increasingly used in human-related decision-making processes such as resume filtering or loan applications. Individuals receiving an undesired classification are likely to call for an explanation - preferably one that specifies what they should do in order to alter that decision when they reapply in the future. Existing work focuses on a single ML model and a single point in time, whereas in practice, both models and data evolve over time: an explanation for an application rejection in 2018 may be irrelevant in 2019 since in the meantime both the model and the applicant's data can change. To this end, we propose a novel framework that provides users with insights and plans for changing their classification in particular future time points. The solution is based on combining state-of-the-art algorithms for (single) model explanations, ones for predicting future models, and database-style querying of the obtained explanations. We propose to demonstrate the usefulness of our solution in the context of loan applications, and interactively engage the audience in computing and viewing suggestions tailored for applicants based on their unique characteristic. Naama Boer, Daniel Deutch, Nave Frost, Tova Milo |
ICDE | 1 |