Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
David Antony Selby
dblp:395/6241
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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 · 93% Optimization for machine learning · 7% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
explainable AI |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
model multiplicity |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › cancer genomics
cancer driver gene identification |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking Cancer Gene Identification Through Graph Anomaly Analysis · AAAI 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › protein analysis › protein-protein interaction
protein-protein interaction network analysis |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking Cancer Gene Identification Through Graph Anomaly Analysis · AAAI 2025 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
multi-objective optimization |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoML · ICML 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
spectral analysis · 0.9graph neural network · 0.9bayesian optimization · 0.9automated machine learning · 0.9SHAP values · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Rethinking Cancer Gene Identification Through Graph Anomaly AnalysisabstractGraph neural networks (GNNs) have shown promise in integrating protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks for identifying cancer genes in recent studies. However, due to the insufficient modeling of the biological information in PPI networks, more faithfully depiction of complex protein interaction patterns for cancer genes within the graph structure remains largely unexplored. This study takes a pioneering step toward bridging biological anomalies in protein interactions caused by cancer genes to statistical graph anomaly. We find a unique graph anomaly exhibited by cancer genes, namely weight heterogeneity, which manifests as significantly higher variance in edge weights of cancer gene nodes within the graph. Additionally, from the spectral perspective, we demonstrate that the weight heterogeneity could lead to the "flattening out" of spectral energy, with a concentration towards the extremes of the spectrum. Building on these insights, we propose the HIerarchical-Perspective Graph Neural Network (HIPGNN) that not only determines spectral energy distribution variations on the spectral perspective, but also perceives detailed protein interaction context on the spatial perspective. Extensive experiments are conducted on two reprocessed datasets STRINGdb and CPDB, and the experimental results demonstrate the superiority of HIPGNN. Yilong Zang, Lingfei Ren, Yue Li 0038, Zhikang Wang, David Antony Selby, Zheng Wang 0007, Sebastian J. Vollmer, Hongzhi Yin, Jiangning Song, Junhang Wu |
AAAI | 5 |
| 2025 | X-Hacking: The Threat of Misguided AutoMLabstractExplainable AI (XAI) and interpretable machine learning methods help to build trust in model predictions and derived insights, yet also present a perverse incentive for analysts to manipulate XAI metrics to support pre-specified conclusions. This paper introduces the concept of X-hacking, a form of p-hacking applied to XAI metrics such as Shap values. We show how easily an automated machine learning pipeline can be adapted to exploit model multiplicity at scale: searching a set of defensible’ models with similar predictive performance to find a desired explanation. We formulate the trade-off between explanation and accuracy as a multi-objective optimisation problem, and illustrate empirically on familiar real-world datasets that, on average, Bayesian optimisation accelerates X-hacking 3-fold for features susceptible to it, versus random sampling. We show the vulnerability of a dataset to X-hacking can be determined by information redundancy among features. Finally, we suggest possible methods for detection and prevention, and discuss ethical implications for the credibility and reproducibility of XAI. Sumantrak Mukherjee, Andrea Sipka, Eyke Hüllermeier, Sebastian J. Vollmer, Sergey Redyuk, David Antony Selby |
ICML | 7 |