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

Roman Levin

dblp:278/3201 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
3since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 2 first-author · 3 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 · 34% Deep learning architectures and training · 26% Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 20%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
tabular deep learning
0.922023
A Performance-Driven Benchmark for Feature Selection in Tabular Deep Learning · NeurIPS 2023
Transfer Learning with Deep Tabular Models · ICLR 2023
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › dimensionality reduction
feature selection
0.712023
A Performance-Driven Benchmark for Feature Selection in Tabular Deep Learning · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.612022
Where do Models go Wrong? Parameter-Space Saliency Maps for Explainability · NeurIPS 2022
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › visual explanation
saliency map
0.612022
Where do Models go Wrong? Parameter-Space Saliency Maps for Explainability · NeurIPS 2022

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

transformer · 0.7lasso · 0.7input-gradient-based selection · 0.7nearest neighbor analysis · 0.6fine-tuning · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Transfer Learning with Deep Tabular Models
Roman Levin, Valeriia Cherepanova, Avi Schwarzschild, Arpit Bansal, C. Bayan Bruss, Tom Goldstein, Andrew Gordon Wilson, Micah Goldblum
ICLR1
2023 A Performance-Driven Benchmark for Feature Selection in Tabular Deep Learning
abstract
Academic tabular benchmarks often contain small sets of curated features. In contrast, data scientists typically collect as many features as possible into their datasets, and even engineer new features from existing ones. To prevent over-fitting in subsequent downstream modeling, practitioners commonly use automated feature selection methods that identify a reduced subset of informative features. Existing benchmarks for tabular feature selection consider classical downstream models, toy synthetic datasets, or do not evaluate feature selectors on the basis of downstream performance. We construct a challenging feature selection benchmark evaluated on downstream neural networks including transformers, using real datasets and multiple methods for generating extraneous features. We also propose an input-gradient-based analogue of LASSO for neural networks that outperforms classical feature selection methods on challenging problems such as selecting from corrupted or second-order features.
Valeriia Cherepanova, Roman Levin, Gowthami Somepalli, Jonas Geiping, C. Bayan Bruss, Andrew Gordon Wilson, Tom Goldstein, Micah Goldblum
NeurIPS2
2022 Where do Models go Wrong? Parameter-Space Saliency Maps for Explainability
abstract
Conventional saliency maps highlight input features to which neural network predictions are highly sensitive. We take a different approach to saliency, in which we identify and analyze the network parameters, rather than inputs, which are responsible for erroneous decisions. We first verify that identified salient parameters are indeed responsible for misclassification by showing that turning these parameters off improves predictions on the associated samples more than turning off the same number of random or least salient parameters. We further validate the link between salient parameters and network misclassification errors by observing that fine-tuning a small number of the most salient parameters on a single sample results in error correction on other samples which were misclassified for similar reasons -- nearest neighbors in the saliency space. After validating our parameter-space saliency maps, we demonstrate that samples which cause similar parameters to malfunction are semantically similar. Further, we introduce an input-space saliency counterpart which reveals how image features cause specific network components to malfunction.
Roman Levin, Manli Shu, Eitan Borgnia, Furong Huang, Micah Goldblum, Tom Goldstein
NeurIPS1