Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Mitchell Plyler
dblp:311/4180
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author · 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
2 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 85% Deep learning architectures and training · 15% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
1.4 | 2 | 2025 | Iterative Counterfactual Data Augmentation · AAAI 2025 Making a (Counterfactual) Difference One Rationale at a Time · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
spurious correlation |
1.4 | 2 | 2025 | Iterative Counterfactual Data Augmentation · AAAI 2025 Making a (Counterfactual) Difference One Rationale at a Time · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
counterfactual data augmentation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Iterative Counterfactual Data Augmentation · AAAI 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
data augmentation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Iterative Counterfactual Data Augmentation · AAAI 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Making a (Counterfactual) Difference One Rationale at a Time · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › explainable AI
interpretable NLP |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Making a (Counterfactual) Difference One Rationale at a Time · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › rationalization
rationale extraction |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Making a (Counterfactual) Difference One Rationale at a Time · NeurIPS 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
counterfactual data augmentation · 1.4large language model · 0.9mutual information maximization · 0.5generative model · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Iterative Counterfactual Data AugmentationabstractCounterfactual data augmentation (CDA) is a method for controlling information or biases in training datasets by generating a complementary dataset with typically opposing biases. Prior work often either relies on hand-crafted rules or algorithmic CDA methods which can leave unwanted information in the augmented dataset. In this work, we show iterative CDA (ICDA) with initial, high-noise interventions can converge to a state with significantly lower noise. Our ICDA procedure produces a dataset where one target signal in the training dataset maintains high mutual information with a corresponding label and the information of spurious signals are reduced. We show training on the augmented datasets produces rationales on documents that better align with human annotation. Our experiments include six human produced datasets and two large-language model generated datasets. Mitchell Plyler, Min Chi |
AAAI | 1 |
| 2021 | Making a (Counterfactual) Difference One Rationale at a TimeabstractRationales, snippets of extracted text that explain an inference, have emerged as a popular framework for interpretable natural language processing (NLP). Rationale models typically consist of two cooperating modules: a selector and a classifier with the goal of maximizing the mutual information (MMI) between the "selected" text and the document label. Despite their promises, MMI-based methods often pick up on spurious text patterns and result in models with nonsensical behaviors. In this work, we investigate whether counterfactual data augmentation (CDA), without human assistance, can improve the performance of the selector by lowering the mutual information between spurious signals and the document label. Our counterfactuals are produced in an unsupervised fashion using class-dependent generative models. From an information theoretic lens, we derive properties of the unaugmented dataset for which our CDA approach would succeed. The effectiveness of CDA is empirically evaluated by comparing against several baselines including an improved MMI-based rationale schema on two multi-aspect datasets. Our results show that CDA produces rationales that better capture the signal of interest. Mitchell Plyler, Min Chi |
NeurIPS | 1 |