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

Byol Kim

dblp:280/1118 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-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 · 2 · 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
Kernel, tree and ensemble methods · 50% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 25% Trustworthy machine learning · 25%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods › ensemble learning
ensemble bootstrapping
0.412020
Predictive inference is free with the jackknife+-after-bootstrap · NeurIPS 2020
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
ensemble learning
0.412020
Predictive inference is free with the jackknife+-after-bootstrap · NeurIPS 2020
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
prediction intervals
0.412020
Predictive inference is free with the jackknife+-after-bootstrap · NeurIPS 2020
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
predictive inference
0.412020
Predictive inference is free with the jackknife+-after-bootstrap · NeurIPS 2020

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

jackknife · 0.4conformal prediction · 0.4bootstrap · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Spectral Differential Network Analysis for High-Dimensional Time Series
abstract
Spectral networks derived from multivariate time series data arise in many domains, from brain science to Earth science. Often, it is of interest to study how these networks change under different conditions. For instance, to better understand epilepsy, it would be interesting to capture the changes in the brain connectivity network as a patient experiences a seizure, using electroencephalography data. A common approach relies on estimating the networks in each condition and calculating their difference. Such estimates may behave poorly in high dimensions as the networks themselves may not be sparse in structure while their difference may be. We build upon this observation to develop an estimator of the difference in inverse spectral densities across two conditions. Using an l1 penalty on the difference, consistency is established by only requiring the difference to be sparse. We illustrate the method on synthetic data experiments and on experiments with electroencephalography data.
Michael Hellstern, Byol Kim, Zaïd Harchaoui, Ali Shojaie
AISTATS2
2020 Predictive inference is free with the jackknife+-after-bootstrap
abstract
Ensemble learning is widely used in applications to make predictions in complex decision problems---for example, averaging models fitted to a sequence of samples bootstrapped from the available training data. While such methods offer more accurate, stable, and robust predictions and model estimates, much less is known about how to perform valid, assumption-lean inference on the output of these types of procedures. In this paper, we propose the jackknife+-after-bootstrap (J+aB), a procedure for constructing a predictive interval, which uses only the available bootstrapped samples and their corresponding fitted models, and is therefore "free" in terms of the cost of model fitting. The J+aB offers a predictive coverage guarantee that holds with no assumptions on the distribution of the data, the nature of the fitted model, or the way in which the ensemble of models are aggregated---at worst, the failure rate of the predictive interval is inflated by a factor of 2. Our numerical experiments verify the coverage and accuracy of the resulting predictive intervals on real data.
Byol Kim, Rina Foygel Barber
NeurIPS1