Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Eleanor Trollope
dblp:395/7832
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as 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 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 · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty · ICML 2025 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
decision theory |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty · ICML 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
information theory · 0.9decision theory · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Rethinking Aleatoric and Epistemic UncertaintyabstractThe ideas of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty are widely used to reason about the probabilistic predictions of machine-learning models. We identify incoherence in existing discussions of these ideas and suggest this stems from the aleatoric-epistemic view being insufficiently expressive to capture all the distinct quantities that researchers are interested in. To address this we present a decision-theoretic perspective that relates rigorous notions of uncertainty, predictive performance and statistical dispersion in data. This serves to support clearer thinking as the field moves forward. Additionally we provide insights into popular information-theoretic quantities, showing they can be poor estimators of what they are often purported to measure, while also explaining how they can still be useful in guiding data acquisition. Freddie Bickford Smith, Jannik Kossen, Eleanor Trollope, Mark van der Wilk, Adam Foster 0001, Tom Rainforth |
ICML | 3 |