Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
John C. Hill
dblp:290/3963
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | The Group Robustness is in the Details: Revisiting Finetuning under Spurious Correlations · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
group robustness |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | The Group Robustness is in the Details: Revisiting Finetuning under Spurious Correlations · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
spurious correlation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | 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 |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | The Group Robustness is in the Details: Revisiting Finetuning under Spurious CorrelationsabstractModern 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 |
NeurIPS | 2 |