Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Rachel Carrington
dblp:252/5808
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 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
1 paper |
Representation and self-supervised learning · 70% Trustworthy machine learning · 30% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › causal representation learning
identifiability |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Invariance and identifiability issues for word embeddings · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
invariance |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Invariance and identifiability issues for word embeddings · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › word representation
word embedding |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Invariance and identifiability issues for word embeddings · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
transformation invariance |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Invariance and identifiability issues for word embeddings · NeurIPS 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
numerical examples · 0.4formal analysis · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | Invariance and identifiability issues for word embeddingsabstractWord embeddings are commonly obtained as optimisers of a criterion function f of a text corpus, but assessed on word-task performance using a different evaluation function g of the test data. We contend that a possible source of disparity in performance on tasks is the incompatibility between classes of transformations that leave f and g invariant. In particular, word embeddings defined by f are not unique; they are defined only up to a class of transformations to which f is invariant, and this class is larger than the class to which g is invariant. One implication of this is that the apparent superiority of one word embedding over another, as measured by word task performance, may largely be a consequence of the arbitrary elements selected from the respective solution sets. We provide a formal treatment of the above identifiability issue, present some numerical examples, and discuss possible resolutions. Rachel Carrington, Karthik Bharath, Simon Preston |
NeurIPS | 1 |