Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Aleksandr Podkopaev
dblp:268/0747
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
5as first author
5since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 5 first-author · 5 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
5 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 46% Learning theory · 46% Kernel, tree and ensemble methods · 5% |
Topics — the 16 heaviest of 16, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Learning theory › hypothesis testing
independence testing |
1.3 | 2 | 2023 | Sequential Predictive Two-Sample and Independence Testing · NeurIPS 2023 Sequential Kernelized Independence Testing · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation › conformal prediction
adaptive conformal inference |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Adaptive Conformal Inference by Betting · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
conformal prediction |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Adaptive Conformal Inference by Betting · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
hypothesis testing |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Sequential Predictive Two-Sample and Independence Testing · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › hypothesis testing
sequential testing |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Sequential Predictive Two-Sample and Independence Testing · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › hypothesis testing
two-sample testing |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Sequential Predictive Two-Sample and Independence Testing · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › distribution shift
distribution shift detection |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Tracking the risk of a deployed model and detecting harmful distribution shifts · ICLR 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Tracking the risk of a deployed model and detecting harmful distribution shifts · ICLR 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
calibration |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Distribution-free binary classification: prediction sets, confidence intervals and calibration · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › statistical estimation › confidence set construction
confidence intervals |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Distribution-free binary classification: prediction sets, confidence intervals and calibration · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
distribution-free uncertainty quantification |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Distribution-free binary classification: prediction sets, confidence intervals and calibration · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
prediction sets |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Distribution-free binary classification: prediction sets, confidence intervals and calibration · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning
online convex optimization |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Adaptive Conformal Inference by Betting · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
pinball loss |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Adaptive Conformal Inference by Betting · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods › kernel methods
hilbert-schmidt independence criterion |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Sequential Kernelized Independence Testing · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
kernel methods |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Sequential Kernelized Independence Testing · ICML 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
pinball loss · 0.8online convex optimization · 0.8conformal prediction · 0.8testing-by-betting · 0.7sequential testing · 0.7prediction-based betting · 0.7kernelized dependence measures · 0.7kernel-based betting · 0.7platt scaling · 0.4binning · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Adaptive Conformal Inference by BettingabstractConformal prediction is a valuable tool for quantifying predictive uncertainty of machine learning models. However, its applicability relies on the assumption of data exchangeability, a condition which is often not met in real-world scenarios. In this paper, we consider the problem of adaptive conformal inference without any assumptions about the data generating process. Existing approaches for adaptive conformal inference are based on optimizing the pinball loss using variants of online gradient descent. A notable shortcoming of such approaches is in their explicit dependence on and sensitivity to the choice of the learning rates. In this paper, we propose a different approach for adaptive conformal inference that leverages parameter-free online convex optimization techniques. We prove that our method controls long-term miscoverage frequency at a nominal level and demonstrate its convincing empirical performance without any need of performing cumbersome parameter tuning. Aleksandr Podkopaev, Kuang-chih Lee |
ICML | 1 |
| 2023 | Sequential Kernelized Independence TestingabstractIndependence testing is a classical statistical problem that has been extensively studied in the batch setting when one fixes the sample size before collecting data. However, practitioners often prefer procedures that adapt to the complexity of a problem at hand instead of setting sample size in advance. Ideally, such procedures should (a) stop earlier on easy tasks (and later on harder tasks), hence making better use of available resources, and (b) continuously monitor the data and efficiently incorporate statistical evidence after collecting new data, while controlling the false alarm rate. Classical batch tests are not tailored for streaming data: valid inference after data peeking requires correcting for multiple testing which results in low power. Following the principle of testing by betting, we design sequential kernelized independence tests that overcome such shortcomings. We exemplify our broad framework using bets inspired by kernelized dependence measures, e.g., the Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion. Our test is also valid under non-i.i.d. time-varying settings. We demonstrate the power of our approaches on both simulated and real data. Aleksandr Podkopaev, Patrick Blöbaum, Shiva Prasad Kasiviswanathan, Aaditya Ramdas |
ICML | 1 |
| 2023 | Sequential Predictive Two-Sample and Independence TestingabstractWe study the problems of sequential nonparametric two-sample and independence testing. Sequential tests process data online and allow using observed data to decide whether to stop and reject the null hypothesis or to collect more data, while maintaining type I error control. We build upon the principle of (nonparametric) testing by betting, where a gambler places bets on future observations and their wealth measures evidence against the null hypothesis. While recently developed kernel-based betting strategies often work well on simple distributions, selecting a suitable kernel for high-dimensional or structured data, such as images, is often nontrivial. To address this drawback, we design prediction-based betting strategies that rely on the following fact: if a sequentially updated predictor starts to consistently determine (a) which distribution an instance is drawn from, or (b) whether an instance is drawn from the joint distribution or the product of the marginal distributions (the latter produced by external randomization), it provides evidence against the two-sample or independence nulls respectively. We empirically demonstrate the superiority of our tests over kernel-based approaches under structured settings. Our tests can be applied beyond the case of independent and identically distributed data, remaining valid and powerful even when the data distribution drifts over time. Aleksandr Podkopaev, Aaditya Ramdas |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2022 | Tracking the risk of a deployed model and detecting harmful distribution shifts
Aleksandr Podkopaev, Aaditya Ramdas |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2021 | Distribution-free uncertainty quantification for classification under label shiftabstractTrustworthy deployment of ML models requires a proper measure of uncertainty, especially in safety-critical applications. We focus on uncertainty quantification (UQ) for classification problems via two avenues — prediction sets using conformal prediction and calibration of probabilistic predictors by post-hoc binning — since these possess distribution-free guarantees for i.i.d. data. Two common ways of generalizing beyond the i.i.d. setting include handling covariate and label shift. Within the context of distribution-free UQ, the former has already received attention, but not the latter. It is known that label shift hurts prediction, and we first argue that it also hurts UQ, by showing degradation in coverage and calibration. Piggybacking on recent progress in addressing label shift (for better prediction), we examine the right way to achieve UQ by reweighting the aforementioned conformal and calibration procedures whenever some unlabeled data from the target distribution is available. We examine these techniques theoretically in a distribution-free framework and demonstrate their excellent practical performance. Aleksandr Podkopaev, Aaditya Ramdas |
UAI | 1 |
| 2020 | Distribution-free binary classification: prediction sets, confidence intervals and calibrationabstractWe study three notions of uncertainty quantification---calibration, confidence intervals and prediction sets---for binary classification in the distribution-free setting, that is without making any distributional assumptions on the data. With a focus towards calibration, we establish a 'tripod' of theorems that connect these three notions for score-based classifiers. A direct implication is that distribution-free calibration is only possible, even asymptotically, using a scoring function whose level sets partition the feature space into at most countably many sets. Parametric calibration schemes such as variants of Platt scaling do not satisfy this requirement, while nonparametric schemes based on binning do. To close the loop, we derive distribution-free confidence intervals for binned probabilities for both fixed-width and uniform-mass binning. As a consequence of our 'tripod' theorems, these confidence intervals for binned probabilities lead to distribution-free calibration. We also derive extensions to settings with streaming data and covariate shift. Aleksandr Podkopaev, Aaditya Ramdas |
NeurIPS | 2 |