BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Ankur Taly

Ankur Taly contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceMachine Learningcs.CYFormal Languages and Automata TheoryHuman-Computer Interaction

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Identifying and Mitigating the Security Risks of Generative AI

Every major technical invention resurfaces the dual-use dilemma -- the new technology has the potential to be used for good as well as for harm. Generative AI (GenAI) techniques, such as large language models (LLMs) and diffusion models, have shown remarkable capabilities (e.g., in-context learning, code-completion, and text-to-image generation and editing). However, GenAI can be used just as well by attackers to generate new attacks and increase the velocity and efficacy of existing attacks. This paper reports the findings of a workshop held at Google (co-organized by Stanford University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison) on the dual-use dilemma posed by GenAI. This paper is not meant to be comprehensive, but is rather an attempt to synthesize some of the interesting findings from the workshop. We discuss short-term and long-term goals for the community on this topic. We hope this paper provides both a launching point for a discussion on this important topic as well as interesting problems that the research community can work to address.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Explainable Machine Learning in Deployment

Explainable machine learning offers the potential to provide stakeholders with insights into model behavior by using various methods such as feature importance scores, counterfactual explanations, or influential training data. Yet there is little understanding of how organizations use these methods in practice. This study explores how organizations view and use explainability for stakeholder consumption. We find that, currently, the majority of deployments are not for end users affected by the model but rather for machine learning engineers, who use explainability to debug the model itself. There is thus a gap between explainability in practice and the goal of transparency, since explanations primarily serve internal stakeholders rather than external ones. Our study synthesizes the limitations of current explainability techniques that hamper their use for end users. To facilitate end user interaction, we develop a framework for establishing clear goals for explainability. We end by discussing concerns raised regarding explainability.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Property Inference for Deep Neural Networks

We present techniques for automatically inferring formal properties of feed-forward neural networks. We observe that a significant part (if not all) of the logic of feed forward networks is captured in the activation status ('on' or 'off') of its neurons. We propose to extract patterns based on neuron decisions as preconditions that imply certain desirable output property e.g., the prediction being a certain class. We present techniques to extract input properties, encoding convex predicates on the input space that imply given output properties and layer properties, representing network properties captured in the hidden layers that imply the desired output behavior. We apply our techniques on networks for the MNIST and ACASXU applications. Our experiments highlight the use of the inferred properties in a variety of tasks, such as explaining predictions, providing robustness guarantees, simplifying proofs, and network distillation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The Explanation Game: Explaining Machine Learning Models Using Shapley Values

A number of techniques have been proposed to explain a machine learning model's prediction by attributing it to the corresponding input features. Popular among these are techniques that apply the Shapley value method from cooperative game theory. While existing papers focus on the axiomatic motivation of Shapley values, and efficient techniques for computing them, they offer little justification for the game formulations used, and do not address the uncertainty implicit in their methods' outputs. For instance, the popular SHAP algorithm's formulation may give substantial attributions to features that play no role in the model. In this work, we illustrate how subtle differences in the underlying game formulations of existing methods can cause large differences in the attributions for a prediction. We then present a general game formulation that unifies existing methods, and enables straightforward confidence intervals on their attributions. Furthermore, it allows us to interpret the attributions as contrastive explanations of an input relative to a distribution of reference inputs. We tie this idea to classic research in cognitive psychology on contrastive explanations, and propose a conceptual framework for generating and interpreting explanations for ML models, called formulate, approximate, explain (FAE). We apply this framework to explain black-box models trained on two UCI datasets and a Lending Club dataset.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Using Attribution to Decode Dataset Bias in Neural Network Models for Chemistry

Deep neural networks have achieved state of the art accuracy at classifying molecules with respect to whether they bind to specific protein targets. A key breakthrough would occur if these models could reveal the fragment pharmacophores that are causally involved in binding. Extracting chemical details of binding from the networks could potentially lead to scientific discoveries about the mechanisms of drug actions. But doing so requires shining light into the black box that is the trained neural network model, a task that has proved difficult across many domains. Here we show how the binding mechanism learned by deep neural network models can be interrogated, using a recently described attribution method. We first work with carefully constructed synthetic datasets, in which the 'fragment logic' of binding is fully known. We find that networks that achieve perfect accuracy on held out test datasets still learn spurious correlations due to biases in the datasets, and we are able to exploit this non-robustness to construct adversarial examples that fool the model. The dataset bias makes these models unreliable for accurately revealing information about the mechanisms of protein-ligand binding. In light of our findings, we prescribe a test that checks for dataset bias given a hypothesis. If the test fails, it indicates that either the model must be simplified or regularized and/or that the training dataset requires augmentation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access