Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
William Roy Orchard
dblp:374/8041
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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
1 paper |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 67% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 33% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › causal reasoning
causal graph |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Root Cause Analysis of Outliers with Missing Structural Knowledge · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
causal inference |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Root Cause Analysis of Outliers with Missing Structural Knowledge · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › causal inference
root cause analysis |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Root Cause Analysis of Outliers with Missing Structural Knowledge · NeurIPS 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
soft intervention · 0.9anomaly score · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Root Cause Analysis of Outliers with Missing Structural KnowledgeabstractThe goal of Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is to explain why an anomaly occurred by identifying where the fault originated. Several recent works model the anomalous event as resulting from a change in the causal mechanism at the root cause, i.e., as a soft intervention. RCA is then the task of identifying which causal mechanism changed. In real-world applications, one often has either few or only a single sample from the post-intervention distribution: a severe limitation for most methods, which assume one knows or can estimate the distribution. However, even those that do not are statistically ill-posed due to the need to probe regression models in regions of low probability density. In this paper, we propose simple, efficient methods to overcome both difficulties in the case where there is a single root cause and the causal graph is a polytree. When one knows the causal graph, we give guarantees for a traversal algorithm that requires only marginal anomaly scores and does not depend on specifying an arbitrary anomaly score cut-off. When one does not know the causal graph, we show that the heuristic of identifying root causes as the variables with the highest marginal anomaly scores is causally justified. To this end, we prove that anomalies with small scores are unlikely to cause those with larger scores in polytrees and give upper bounds for the likelihood of causal pathways with non-monotonic anomaly scores. William Roy Orchard, Nastaran Okati, Sergio Hernan Garrido Mejia, Patrick Blöbaum, Dominik Janzing |
NeurIPS | 1 |