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

Sungbin Shin

dblp:341/4212 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 3 first-author · 3 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
2 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 59% Efficient and distributed learning · 41%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression › pruning › DNN pruning
language model pruning
0.812024
Rethinking Pruning Large Language Models: Benefits and Pitfalls of Reconstruction Error Minimization · EMNLP 2024
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
model compression
0.812024
Rethinking Pruning Large Language Models: Benefits and Pitfalls of Reconstruction Error Minimization · EMNLP 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
concept bottleneck model
0.712023
A Closer Look at the Intervention Procedure of Concept Bottleneck Models · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
concept intervention
0.712023
A Closer Look at the Intervention Procedure of Concept Bottleneck Models · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.712023
A Closer Look at the Intervention Procedure of Concept Bottleneck Models · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.212023
A Closer Look at the Intervention Procedure of Concept Bottleneck Models · ICML 2023

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

reconstruction error minimization · 0.8calibration data self-generation · 0.8synthetic data generation · 0.7causal graph · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Critical Influence of Overparameterization on Sharpness-aware Minimization
abstract
Training overparameterized neural networks often yields solutions with varying generalization capabilities, even when achieving similar training losses. Recent evidence indicates a strong correlation between the sharpness of a minimum and its generalization error, leading to increased interest in optimization methods that explicitly seek flatter minima for improved generalization. Despite its contemporary relevance to overparameterization, however, this sharpness-aware minimization (SAM) strategy has not been studied much yet as to exactly how it is affected by overparameterization. In this work, we analyze SAM under varying degrees of overparameterization, presenting both empirical and theoretical findings that reveal its critical influence on SAM’s effectiveness. First, we conduct extensive numerical experiments across diverse domains and show that SAM consistently improves with overparameterization. Next, we attribute this phenomenon to the interplay between the enlarged solution space and increased implicit bias resulting from overparameterization. Furthermore, we show that this effect is particularly pronounced in practical settings involving label noise and sparsity, and yet, sufficient regularization is necessary. Last but not least, we provide other theoretical insights into how overparameterization helps SAM achieve minima with more uniform Hessian moments compared to SGD, and much faster convergence at a linear rate.
Sungbin Shin, Dongyeop Lee, Maksym Andriushchenko, Namhoon Lee
UAI1
2024 Rethinking Pruning Large Language Models: Benefits and Pitfalls of Reconstruction Error Minimization
abstract
This work suggests fundamentally rethinking the current practice of pruning large language models (LLMs).The way it is done is by divide and conquer: split the model into submodels, sequentially prune them, and reconstruct predictions of the dense counterparts on small calibration data one at a time; the final model is obtained simply by putting the resulting sparse submodels together.While this approach enables pruning under memory constraints, it generates high reconstruction errors.In this work, we first present an array of reconstruction techniques that can significantly reduce this error by more than 90%.Unwittingly, however, we discover that minimizing reconstruction error is not always ideal and can overfit the given calibration data, resulting in rather increased language perplexity and poor performance at downstream tasks.We find out that a strategy of self-generating calibration data can mitigate this trade-off between reconstruction and generalization, suggesting new directions in the presence of both benefits and pitfalls of reconstruction for pruning LLMs. 1
Sungbin Shin, Wonpyo Park, Jaeho Lee 0001, Namhoon Lee
EMNLP1
2023 A Closer Look at the Intervention Procedure of Concept Bottleneck Models
abstract
Concept bottleneck models (CBMs) are a class of interpretable neural network models that predict the target response of a given input based on its high-level concepts. Unlike the standard end-to-end models, CBMs enable domain experts to intervene on the predicted concepts and rectify any mistakes at test time, so that more accurate task predictions can be made at the end. While such intervenability provides a powerful avenue of control, many aspects of the intervention procedure remain rather unexplored. In this work, we develop various ways of selecting intervening concepts to improve the intervention effectiveness and conduct an array of in-depth analyses as to how they evolve under different circumstances. Specifically, we find that an informed intervention strategy can reduce the task error more than ten times compared to the current baseline under the same amount of intervention counts in realistic settings, and yet, this can vary quite significantly when taking into account different intervention granularity. We verify our findings through comprehensive evaluations, not only on the standard real datasets, but also on synthetic datasets that we generate based on a set of different causal graphs. We further discover some major pitfalls of the current practices which, without a proper addressing, raise concerns on reliability and fairness of the intervention procedure.
Sungbin Shin, Yohan Jo, Sungsoo Ahn, Namhoon Lee
ICML1