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

Yegor Klochkov

dblp:251/3118 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-author · 2 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
2 papers
Learning theory · 59% Trustworthy machine learning · 41%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Computational complexity · 33% Quantum computing and quantum information · 33% Mathematical optimization · 33%

Topics — the 9 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
algorithmic fairness
0.812024
Post-hoc bias scoring is optimal for fair classification · ICLR 2024
Quantum computing and quantum information
generalization bounds
0.512021
Stability and Deviation Optimal Risk Bounds with Convergence Rate $O(1/n)$ · NeurIPS 2021
Computational complexity
learning theory
0.512021
Stability and Deviation Optimal Risk Bounds with Convergence Rate $O(1/n)$ · NeurIPS 2021
Mathematical optimization › stochastic optimization
stochastic convex optimization
0.512021
Stability and Deviation Optimal Risk Bounds with Convergence Rate $O(1/n)$ · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds
algorithmic stability
0.412020
Sharper Bounds for Uniformly Stable Algorithms · COLT 2020
Machine learning › Learning theory
concentration inequalities
0.412020
Sharper Bounds for Uniformly Stable Algorithms · COLT 2020
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization
generalization theory
0.412020
Sharper Bounds for Uniformly Stable Algorithms · COLT 2020
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds
high probability bounds
0.412020
Sharper Bounds for Uniformly Stable Algorithms · COLT 2020
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization › stability and generalization
uniform stability
0.412020
Sharper Bounds for Uniformly Stable Algorithms · COLT 2020

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

post-processing · 0.8bias scoring · 0.8bayes optimal classification · 0.8uniform stability · 0.5bernstein condition · 0.5moment bounds · 0.4concentration inequalities · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Post-hoc bias scoring is optimal for fair classification
abstract
We consider a binary classification problem under group fairness constraints, which can be one of Demographic Parity (DP), Equalized Opportunity (EOp), or Equalized Odds (EO). We propose an explicit characterization of Bayes optimal classifier under the fairness constraints, which turns out to be a simple modification rule of the unconstrained classifier. Namely, we introduce a novel instance-level measure of bias, which we call bias score, and the modification rule is a simple linear rule on top of the finite amount of bias scores. Based on this characterization, we develop a post-hoc approach that allows us to adapt to fairness constraints while maintaining high accuracy. In the case of DP and EOp constraints, the modification rule is thresholding a single bias score, while in the case of EO constraints we are required to fit a linear modification rule with 2 parameters. The method can also be applied for composite group-fairness criteria, such as ones involving several sensitive attributes. We achieve competitive or better performance compared to both in-processing and post-processing methods across three datasets: Adult, COMPAS, and CelebA. Unlike most post-processing methods, we do not require access to sensitive attributes during the inference time.
Yegor Klochkov, Yang Liu 0018
ICLR2
2021 Stability and Deviation Optimal Risk Bounds with Convergence Rate $O(1/n)$
abstract
The sharpest known high probability generalization bounds for uniformly stable algorithms (Feldman, Vondrak, NeurIPS 2018, COLT, 2019), (Bousquet, Klochkov, Zhivotovskiy, COLT, 2020) contain a generally inevitable sampling error term of order $\Theta(1/\sqrt{n})$. When applied to excess risk bounds, this leads to suboptimal results in several standard stochastic convex optimization problems. We show that if the so-called Bernstein condition is satisfied, the term $\Theta(1/\sqrt{n})$ can be avoided, and high probability excess risk bounds of order up to $O(1/n)$ are possible via uniform stability. Using this result, we show a high probability excess risk bound with the rate $O(\log n/n)$ for strongly convex and Lipschitz losses valid for \emph{any} empirical risk minimization method. This resolves a question of Shalev-Shwartz, Shamir, Srebro, and Sridharan (COLT, 2009). We discuss how $O(\log n/n)$ high probability excess risk bounds are possible for projected gradient descent in the case of strongly convex and Lipschitz losses without the usual smoothness assumption.
Yegor Klochkov, Nikita Zhivotovskiy
NeurIPS1
2020 Sharper Bounds for Uniformly Stable Algorithms
abstract
Deriving generalization bounds for stable algorithms is a classical question in learning theory taking its roots in the early works by Vapnik and Chervonenkis (1974) and Rogers and Wagner (1978). In a series of recent breakthrough papers by Feldman and Vondrak (2018, 2019), it was shown that the best known high probability upper bounds for uniformly stable learning algorithms due to Bousquet and Elisseef (2002) are sub-optimal in some natural regimes. To do so, they proved two generalization bounds that significantly outperform the simple generalization bound of Bousquet and Elisseef (2002). Feldman and Vondrak also asked if it is possible to provide sharper bounds and prove corresponding high probability lower bounds. This paper is devoted to these questions: firstly, inspired by the original arguments of Feldman and Vondrak (2019), we provide a short proof of the moment bound that implies the generalization bound stronger than both recent results in Feldman and Vondrak (2018, 2019). Secondly, we prove general lower bounds, showing that our moment bound is sharp (up to a logarithmic factor) unless some additional properties of the corresponding random variables are used. Our main probabilistic result is a general concentration inequality for weakly correlated random variables, which may be of independent interest.
Olivier Bousquet, Yegor Klochkov, Nikita Zhivotovskiy
COLT2