EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Roshni Sahoo
dblp:264/2664
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2021
—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
3 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 62% Time series and sequential data · 13% Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 13% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 50% Computational complexity · 50% |
Topics — the 10 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
calibration |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Calibrating Predictions to Decisions: A Novel Approach to Multi-Class Calibration · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation › few-shot learning
distribution calibration |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Calibrating Predictions to Decisions: A Novel Approach to Multi-Class Calibration · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Time series and sequential data › time series modeling
probabilistic forecasting |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Reliable Decisions with Threshold Calibration · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › calibration
threshold calibration |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Reliable Decisions with Threshold Calibration · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty and calibration |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Reliable Decisions with Threshold Calibration · NeurIPS 2021 |
Computer vision › 3D vision › pose estimation
orientation estimation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Deep Orientation Uncertainty Learning based on a Bingham Loss · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
uncertainty-aware learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Deep Orientation Uncertainty Learning based on a Bingham Loss · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Deep Orientation Uncertainty Learning based on a Bingham Loss · ICLR 2020 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
decision theory |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Reliable Decisions with Threshold Calibration · NeurIPS 2021 |
Computational complexity › boolean function complexity
threshold problem |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Reliable Decisions with Threshold Calibration · NeurIPS 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
threshold loss function · 1.0calibration · 1.0recalibration algorithm · 0.5bingham loss · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Reliable Decisions with Threshold CalibrationabstractDecision makers rely on probabilistic forecasts to predict the loss of different decision rules before deployment. When the forecasted probabilities match the true frequencies, predicted losses will be accurate. Although perfect forecasts are typically impossible, probabilities can be calibrated to match the true frequencies on average. However, we find that this \textit{average} notion of calibration, which is typically used in practice, does not necessarily guarantee accurate decision loss prediction. Specifically in the regression setting, the loss of threshold decisions, which are decisions based on whether the forecasted outcome falls above or below a cutoff, might not be predicted accurately. We propose a stronger notion of calibration called threshold calibration, which is exactly the condition required to ensure that decision loss is predicted accurately for threshold decisions. We provide an efficient algorithm which takes an uncalibrated forecaster as input and provably outputs a threshold-calibrated forecaster. Our procedure allows downstream decision makers to confidently estimate the loss of any threshold decision under any threshold loss function. Empirically, threshold calibration improves decision loss prediction without compromising on the quality of the decisions in two real-world settings: hospital scheduling decisions and resource allocation decisions. Roshni Sahoo, Shengjia Zhao, Alyssa Chen, Stefano Ermon |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2021 | Calibrating Predictions to Decisions: A Novel Approach to Multi-Class CalibrationabstractWhen facing uncertainty, decision-makers want predictions they can trust. A machine learning provider can convey confidence to decision-makers by guaranteeing their predictions are distribution calibrated--- amongst the inputs that receive a predicted vector of class probabilities q, the actual distribution over classes is given by q. For multi-class prediction problems, however, directly optimizing predictions under distribution calibration tends to be infeasible, requiring sample complexity that grows exponentially in the number of classes C. In this work, we introduce a new notion---decision calibration---that requires the predicted distribution and true distribution over classes to be ``indistinguishable'' to downstream decision-makers. This perspective gives a new characterization of distribution calibration: a predictor is distribution calibrated if and only if it is decision calibrated with respect to all decision-makers. Our main result shows that under a mild restriction, unlike distribution calibration, decision calibration is actually feasible. We design a recalibration algorithm that provably achieves decision calibration efficiently, provided that the decision-makers have a bounded number of actions (e.g., polynomial in C). We validate our recalibration algorithm empirically: compared to existing methods, decision calibration improves decision-making on skin lesion and ImageNet classification with modern neural network predictors. Shengjia Zhao, Michael P. Kim, Roshni Sahoo, Tengyu Ma 0001, Stefano Ermon |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2020 | Deep Orientation Uncertainty Learning based on a Bingham Loss
Igor Gilitschenski, Roshni Sahoo, Wilko Schwarting, Alexander Amini, Sertac Karaman, Daniela Rus |
ICLR | 2 |