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

Nicholas Carl Roberts

dblp:326/7122 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
4since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 2 first-author · 4 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
4 papers
Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 39% Generative modeling · 15% Learning theory · 15%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers
Machine learning and data management · 100%

Topics — the 11 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning and data management
weak supervision
1.222023
Generative Modeling Helps Weak Supervision (and Vice Versa) · ICLR 2023
AutoWS-Bench-101: Benchmarking Automated Weak Supervision with 100 Labels · NeurIPS 2022
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation › domain adaptation › representation learning for domain adaptation
geometry-aware domain adaptation
0.712023
Geometry-Aware Adaptation for Pretrained Models · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Learning theory
sample complexity
0.712023
Geometry-Aware Adaptation for Pretrained Models · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
zero-shot learning
0.712023
Geometry-Aware Adaptation for Pretrained Models · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
learning with noisy labels
0.612022
Universalizing Weak Supervision · ICLR 2022
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
weakly supervised learning
0.612022
Universalizing Weak Supervision · ICLR 2022
Machine learning and data management › weak supervision
labeling functions
0.612022
AutoWS-Bench-101: Benchmarking Automated Weak Supervision with 100 Labels · NeurIPS 2022
Machine learning and data management › weak supervision
programmatic weak supervision
0.612022
AutoWS-Bench-101: Benchmarking Automated Weak Supervision with 100 Labels · NeurIPS 2022
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
pre-trained models
0.212023
Geometry-Aware Adaptation for Pretrained Models · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
few-shot learning
0.212022
AutoWS-Bench-101: Benchmarking Automated Weak Supervision with 100 Labels · NeurIPS 2022
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
foundation model
0.212022
AutoWS-Bench-101: Benchmarking Automated Weak Supervision with 100 Labels · NeurIPS 2022

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

weak supervision · 1.3generative modeling · 1.3zero-shot foundation models · 1.1fréchet mean · 0.7active learning · 0.7supervised learning baselines · 0.6supervised learning baseline · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Generative Modeling Helps Weak Supervision (and Vice Versa)
Benedikt Boecking, Nicholas Carl Roberts, Willie Neiswanger, Stefano Ermon, Frederic Sala, Artur Dubrawski
ICLR2
2023 Geometry-Aware Adaptation for Pretrained Models
abstract
Machine learning models---including prominent zero-shot models---are often trained on datasets whose labels are only a small proportion of a larger label space. Such spaces are commonly equipped with a metric that relates the labels via distances between them. We propose a simple approach to exploit this information to adapt the trained model to reliably predict new classes---or, in the case of zero-shot prediction, to improve its performance---without any additional training. Our technique is a drop-in replacement of the standard prediction rule, swapping $\text{argmax}$ with the Fréchet mean. We provide a comprehensive theoretical analysis for this approach, studying (i) learning-theoretic results trading off label space diameter, sample complexity, and model dimension, (ii) characterizations of the full range of scenarios in which it is possible to predict any unobserved class, and (iii) an optimal active learning-like next class selection procedure to obtain optimal training classes for when it is not possible to predict the entire range of unobserved classes. Empirically, using easily-available external metrics, our proposed approach, Loki, gains up to 29.7% relative improvement over SimCLR on ImageNet and scales to hundreds of thousands of classes. When no such metric is available, Loki can use self-derived metrics from class embeddings and obtains a 10.5% improvement on pretrained zero-shot models such as CLIP.
Nicholas Carl Roberts, Xintong Li 0001, Dyah Adila, Sonia Cromp, Tzu-Heng Huang, Jitian Zhao, Frederic Sala
NeurIPS1
2022 Universalizing Weak Supervision
Changho Shin, Winfred Li, Harit Vishwakarma, Nicholas Carl Roberts, Frederic Sala
ICLR4
2022 AutoWS-Bench-101: Benchmarking Automated Weak Supervision with 100 Labels
abstract
Weak supervision (WS) is a powerful method to build labeled datasets for training supervised models in the face of little-to-no labeled data. It replaces hand-labeling data with aggregating multiple noisy-but-cheap label estimates expressed by labeling functions (LFs). While it has been used successfully in many domains, weak supervision's application scope is limited by the difficulty of constructing labeling functions for domains with complex or high-dimensional features. To address this, a handful of methods have proposed automating the LF design process using a small set of ground truth labels. In this work, we introduce AutoWS-Bench-101: a framework for evaluating automated WS (AutoWS) techniques in challenging WS settings---a set of diverse application domains on which it has been previously difficult or impossible to apply traditional WS techniques. While AutoWS is a promising direction toward expanding the application-scope of WS, the emergence of powerful methods such as zero-shot foundation models reveal the need to understand how AutoWS techniques compare or cooperate with modern zero-shot or few-shot learners. This informs the central question of AutoWS-Bench-101: given an initial set of 100 labels for each task, we ask whether a practitioner should use an AutoWS method to generate additional labels or use some simpler baseline, such as zero-shot predictions from a foundation model or supervised learning. We observe that it is necessary for AutoWS methods to incorporate signal from foundation models if they are to outperform simple few-shot baselines, and AutoWS-Bench-101 promotes future research in this direction. We conclude with a thorough ablation study of AutoWS methods.
Nicholas Carl Roberts, Xintong Li 0001, Tzu-Heng Huang, Dyah Adila, Spencer Schoenberg, Cheng-Yu Liu 0002, Lauren Pick, Aws Albarghouthi, Frederic Sala
NeurIPS1