Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Varun Babbar
dblp:289/2305
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
3as first author
5since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0002-3234-1358ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 3 first-author · 3 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 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% Kernel, tree and ensemble methods · 19% Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 19% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Mathematical optimization · 100% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Human-AI interaction · 100% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Data integration and cleaning · 100% |
Topics — the 8 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
1.7 | 2 | 2025 | "What is Different Between These Datasets?" A Framework for Explaining Data Distribution Shifts · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 Near-Optimal Decision Trees in a SPLIT Second · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
dataset comparison |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | "What is Different Between These Datasets?" A Framework for Explaining Data Distribution Shifts · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 |
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods › decision tree learning
decision tree optimization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Near-Optimal Decision Trees in a SPLIT Second · ICML 2025 |
Mathematical optimization › integer programming
branch-and-bound |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Near-Optimal Decision Trees in a SPLIT Second · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
conformal prediction |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | On the Utility of Prediction Sets in Human-AI Teams · IJCAI 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | On the Utility of Prediction Sets in Human-AI Teams · IJCAI 2022 |
Human-AI interaction
human-AI collaboration |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | On the Utility of Prediction Sets in Human-AI Teams · IJCAI 2022 |
Data integration and cleaning
data quality |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | "What is Different Between These Datasets?" A Framework for Explaining Data Distribution Shifts · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
sparse lookahead · 1.7interpretable dataset comparison · 1.7dynamic programming · 1.7distribution shift detection · 1.7branch-and-bound · 1.7deferral · 1.1conformal prediction · 1.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Near-Optimal Decision Trees in a SPLIT SecondabstractDecision tree optimization is fundamental to interpretable machine learning. The most popular approach is to greedily search for the best feature at every decision point, which is fast but provably suboptimal. Recent approaches find the global optimum using branch and bound with dynamic programming, showing substantial improvements in accuracy and sparsity at great cost to scalability. An ideal solution would have the accuracy of an optimal method and the scalability of a greedy method. We introduce a family of algorithms called SPLIT (SParse Lookahead for Interpretable Trees) that moves us significantly forward in achieving this ideal balance. We demonstrate that not all sub-problems need to be solved to optimality to find high quality trees; greediness suffices near the leaves. Since each depth adds an exponential number of possible trees, this change makes our algorithms orders of magnitude faster than existing optimal methods, with negligible loss in performance. We extend this algorithm to allow scalable computation of sets of near-optimal trees (i.e., the Rashomon set). Varun Babbar, Hayden McTavish, Cynthia Rudin, Margo I. Seltzer |
ICML | 1 |
| 2025 | Learning a consensus sub-network with polarization regularization and one pass training
Xiaoying Zhi, Varun Babbar, Rundong Liu, Pheobe Sun, Fran Silavong, Ruibo Shi, Sean J. Moran |
Data Min. Knowl. Discov. | 2 |
| 2025 | "What is Different Between These Datasets?" A Framework for Explaining Data Distribution ShiftsabstractThe performance of machine learning models relies heavily on the quality of input data, yet real-world applications often face significant data-related challenges. A common issue arises when curating training data or deploying models: two datasets from the same domain may exhibit differing distributions. While many techniques exist for detecting such distribution shifts, there is a lack of comprehensive methods to explain these differences in a human-understandable way beyond opaque quantitative metrics. To bridge this gap, we propose a versatile framework of interpretable methods for comparing datasets. Using a variety of case studies, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach across diverse data modalities—including tabular data, text data, images, time-series signals – in both low and high-dimensional settings. These methods complement existing techniques by providing actionable and interpretable insights to better understand and address distribution shifts. Varun Babbar, Zhicheng Guo, Cynthia Rudin |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 1 |
| 2022 | On the Utility of Prediction Sets in Human-AI TeamsabstractResearch on human-AI teams usually provides experts with a single label, which ignores the uncertainty in a model's recommendation. Conformal prediction (CP) is a well established line of research that focuses on building a theoretically grounded, calibrated prediction set, which may contain multiple labels. We explore how such prediction sets impact expert decision-making in human-AI teams. Our evaluation on human subjects finds that set valued predictions positively impact experts. However, we notice that the predictive sets provided by CP can be very large, which leads to unhelpful AI assistants. To mitigate this, we introduce D-CP, a method to perform CP on some examples and defer to experts. We prove that D-CP can reduce the prediction set size of non-deferred examples. We show how D-CP performs in quantitative and in human subject experiments (n=120). Our results suggest that CP prediction sets improve human-AI team performance over showing the top-1 prediction alone, and that experts find D-CP prediction sets are more useful than CP prediction sets. Varun Babbar, Umang Bhatt, Adrian Weller |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2022 | Training a Task-Specific Image Reconstruction LossabstractThe choice of a loss function is an important factor when training neural networks for image restoration problems, such as single image super resolution. The loss function should encourage natural and perceptually pleasing results. A popular choice for a loss is a pre-trained network, such as VGG, which is used as a feature extractor for computing the difference between restored and reference images. However, such an approach has multiple drawbacks: it is computationally expensive, requires regularization and hyper-parameter tuning, and involves a large network trained on an unrelated task. Furthermore, it has been observed that there is no single loss function that works best across all applications and across different datasets. In this work, we instead propose to train a set of loss functions that are application specific in nature. Our loss function comprises a series of discriminators that are trained to detect and penalize the presence of application-specific artifacts. We show that a single natural image and corresponding distortions are sufficient to train our feature extractor that outperforms state-of-the-art loss functions in applications like single image super resolution, denoising, and JPEG artifact removal. Finally, we conclude that an effective loss function does not have to be a good predictor of perceived image quality, but instead needs to be specialized in identifying the distortions for a given restoration method. Aamir Mustafa, Aliaksei Mikhailiuk, Dan-Andrei Iliescu, Varun Babbar, Rafal Mantiuk |
WACV | 4 |