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

John C. Hill

dblp:290/3963 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.812024
The Group Robustness is in the Details: Revisiting Finetuning under Spurious Correlations · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
group robustness
0.812024
The Group Robustness is in the Details: Revisiting Finetuning under Spurious Correlations · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
spurious correlation
0.812024
The Group Robustness is in the Details: Revisiting Finetuning under Spurious Correlations · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › model robustness evaluation
worst-group accuracy
0.812024
The Group Robustness is in the Details: Revisiting Finetuning under Spurious Correlations · NeurIPS 2024

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

upsampling · 0.8loss upweighting · 0.8fine-tuning · 0.8class balancing · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 The Group Robustness is in the Details: Revisiting Finetuning under Spurious Correlations
abstract
Modern machine learning models are prone to over-reliance on spurious correlations, which can often lead to poor performance on minority groups. In this paper, we identify surprising and nuanced behavior of finetuned models on worst-group accuracy via comprehensive experiments on four well-established benchmarks across vision and language tasks. We first show that the commonly used class-balancing techniques of mini-batch upsampling and loss upweighting can induce a decrease in worst-group accuracy (WGA) with training epochs, leading to performance no better than without class-balancing. While in some scenarios, removing data to create a class-balanced subset is more effective, we show this depends on group structure and propose a mixture method which can outperform both techniques. Next, we show that scaling pretrained models is generally beneficial for worst-group accuracy, but only in conjunction with appropriate class-balancing. Finally, we identify spectral imbalance in finetuning features as a potential source of group disparities --- minority group covariance matrices incur a larger spectral norm than majority groups once conditioned on the classes. Our results show more nuanced interactions of modern finetuned models with group robustness than was previously known. Our code is available at https://github.com/tmlabonte/revisiting-finetuning.
Tyler LaBonte, John C. Hill, Vidya Muthukumar, Abhishek Kumar 0001
NeurIPS2