Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Erica Klampfl

dblp:60/5431 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 1 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

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 · 67% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 33%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.522017
A Bayesian Framework for Learning Rule Sets for Interpretable Classification · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2017
Bayesian Rule Sets for Interpretable Classification · ICDM 2016
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › rule-based model
rule-based classification
0.312017
A Bayesian Framework for Learning Rule Sets for Interpretable Classification · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2017
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference
bayesian classification
0.212016
Bayesian Rule Sets for Interpretable Classification · ICDM 2016
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › explainable AI
interpretable classification
0.212016
Bayesian Rule Sets for Interpretable Classification · ICDM 2016

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

pruning · 0.3disjunctive normal form · 0.3MAP inference · 0.3bayesian inference · 0.2MAP estimation · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 A Bayesian Framework for Learning Rule Sets for Interpretable Classification
abstract
We present a machine learning algorithm for building classifiers that are comprised of a small number of short rules. These are restricted disjunctive normal form models. An example of a classifier of this form is as follows: If $X$ satisfies (condition $A$ AND condition $B$) OR (condition $C$) OR $\cdots$, then $Y=1$. Models of this form have the advantage of being interpretable to human experts since they produce a set of rules that concisely describe a specific class. We present two probabilistic models with prior parameters that the user can set to encourage the model to have a desired size and shape, to conform with a domain-specific definition of interpretability. We provide a scalable MAP inference approach and develop theoretical bounds to reduce computation by iteratively pruning the search space. We apply our method (Bayesian Rule Sets -- BRS) to characterize and predict user behavior with respect to in-vehicle context-aware personalized recommender systems. Our method has a major advantage over classical associative classification methods and decision trees in that it does not greedily grow the model.
Tong Wang 0011, Cynthia Rudin, Finale Doshi-Velez, Erica Klampfl, Perry MacNeille
J. Mach. Learn. Res.5
2016 Bayesian Rule Sets for Interpretable Classification
abstract
A Rule Set model consists of a small number of short rules for interpretable classification, where an instance is classified as positive if it satisfies at least one of the rules. The rule set provides reasons for predictions, and also descriptions of a particular class. We present a Bayesian framework for learning Rule Set models, with prior parameters that the user can set to encourage the model to have a desired size and shape in order to conform with a domain-specific definition of interpretability. We use an efficient inference approach for searching for the MAP solution and provide theoretical bounds to reduce computation. We apply Rule Set models to ten UCI data sets and compare the performance with other interpretable and non-interpretable models.
Tong Wang 0011, Cynthia Rudin, Finale Doshi-Velez, Erica Klampfl, Perry MacNeille
ICDM5
2013 The Pareto Frontier for Vehicle Fleet Purchases - Cost versus Sustainability
Daniel Reich, Sandra L. Winkler, Erica Klampfl
ICORES3
2012 Engine Calibration Process Optimization
Erica Klampfl, Jenny Lee, David Dronzkowski, Kacie Theisen
ICORES1
2010 Integrated Process Planning and Supply Chain Configuration for Commodity Assemblies Using Petri Nets
Oleg Yu. Gusikhin, Erica Klampfl
Petri Nets2
2007 Application of intelligent methods to automotive assembly planning
abstract
The automotive manufacturing process is one of the most complex processes in industry today. The rapid changes in the marketplace and introduction of new technologies require that the underlying manufacturing processes keep pace. The use of intelligent systems for this environment is quickly becoming a necessity. In this paper, we describe how some of these intelligent methods are used at Ford Motor Company in the automotive assembly planning domain. The following applications of intelligent systems will be described: knowledge-based labor management, ergonomics analysis, and workcell layout optimization. We will also discuss how natural language processing can assist in understanding unstructured textual data. All of these examples show how computational intelligence can be successfully applied in an industrial setting.
Nestor Rychtyckyj, Erica Klampfl, Oleg Yu. Gusikhin, Giuseppe Rossi
SMC2