Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Hans Hao-Hsun Hsu
dblp:307/5197
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
—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
2 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 78% Graph learning · 15% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 7% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
machine unlearning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Do LLMs Really Forget? Evaluating Unlearning with Knowledge Correlation and Confidence Awareness · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › machine unlearning
unlearning evaluation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Do LLMs Really Forget? Evaluating Unlearning with Knowledge Correlation and Confidence Awareness · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
calibration |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | What Makes Graph Neural Networks Miscalibrated? · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph neural network |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | What Makes Graph Neural Networks Miscalibrated? · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › calibration
graph neural network calibration |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | What Makes Graph Neural Networks Miscalibrated? · NeurIPS 2022 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
knowledge graph |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Do LLMs Really Forget? Evaluating Unlearning with Knowledge Correlation and Confidence Awareness · NeurIPS 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
prompt calibration · 0.9large language model as judge · 0.9temperature scaling · 0.6post-hoc calibration · 0.6attention-based architecture · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Do LLMs Really Forget? Evaluating Unlearning with Knowledge Correlation and Confidence AwarenessabstractMachine unlearning techniques aim to mitigate unintended memorization in large language models (LLMs). However, existing approaches predominantly focus on the explicit removal of isolated facts, often overlooking latent inferential dependencies and the non-deterministic nature of knowledge within LLMs. Consequently, facts presumed forgotten may persist implicitly through correlated information. To address these challenges, we propose a knowledge unlearning evaluation framework that more accurately captures the implicit structure of real-world knowledge by representing relevant factual contexts as knowledge graphs with associated confidence scores. We further develop an inference-based evaluation protocol leveraging powerful LLMs as judges; these judges reason over the extracted knowledge subgraph to determine unlearning success. Our LLM judges utilize carefully designed prompts and are calibrated against human evaluations to ensure their trustworthiness and stability. Extensive experiments on our newly constructed benchmark demonstrate that our framework provides a more realistic and rigorous assessment of unlearning performance. Moreover, our findings reveal that current evaluation strategies tend to overestimate unlearning effectiveness. Rongzhe Wei, Peizhi Niu, Hans Hao-Hsun Hsu, Ruihan Wu, Haoteng Yin, Mohsen Ghassemi, Vamsi K. Potluru, Eli Chien, Kamalika Chaudhuri, Olgica Milenkovic, Pan Li 0005 |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2022 | What Makes Graph Neural Networks Miscalibrated?abstractGiven the importance of getting calibrated predictions and reliable uncertainty estimations, various post-hoc calibration methods have been developed for neural networks on standard multi-class classification tasks. However, these methods are not well suited for calibrating graph neural networks (GNNs), which presents unique challenges such as accounting for the graph structure and the graph-induced correlations between the nodes. In this work, we conduct a systematic study on the calibration qualities of GNN node predictions. In particular, we identify five factors which influence the calibration of GNNs: general under-confident tendency, diversity of nodewise predictive distributions, distance to training nodes, relative confidence level, and neighborhood similarity. Furthermore, based on the insights from this study, we design a novel calibration method named Graph Attention Temperature Scaling (GATS), which is tailored for calibrating graph neural networks. GATS incorporates designs that address all the identified influential factors and produces nodewise temperature scaling using an attention-based architecture. GATS is accuracy-preserving, data-efficient, and expressive at the same time. Our experiments empirically verify the effectiveness of GATS, demonstrating that it can consistently achieve state-of-the-art calibration results on various graph datasets for different GNN backbones. Hans Hao-Hsun Hsu, Yuesong Shen, Christian Tomani, Daniel Cremers |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2021 | Automated Antenna Testing Using Encoder-Decoder-based Anomaly DetectionabstractWe propose a new method for testing antenna arrays that records the radiating electromagnetic (EM) field using an absorbing material and evaluating the resulting thermal image series through an AI using a conditional encoder-decoder model. Given the power and phase of the signals fed into each array element, we are able to reconstruct normal sequences through our trained model and compare it to the real sequences observed by a thermal camera. These thermograms only contain low-level patterns such as blobs of various shapes. A contour-based anomaly detector can then map the reconstruction error matrix to an anomaly score to identify faulty antenna arrays and increase the classification F-measure (F-M) by up to 46%. We show our approach on the time series thermograms collected by our antenna testing system. Conventionally, a variational autoencoder (VAE) learning observation noise may yield better results than a VAE with a constant noise assumption. However, we demonstrate that this is not the case for anomaly detection on such low-level patterns for two reasons. First, the baseline metric reconstruction probability, which incorporates the learned observation noise, fails to differentiate anomalous patterns. Second, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of a VAE with a lower observation noise assumption achieves 11.83% higher than that of a VAE with learned noise. Hans Hao-Hsun Hsu, Jiawen Xu 0001, Ravi Sama, Matthias Kovatsch |
ICMLA | 1 |