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

Christian Wirth

Christian Wirth contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computer VisionHuman-Computer InteractionLogic in Computer ScienceMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
4topics
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

2 published item(s)

preprint2025arXiv

Explanation format does not matter; but explanations do -- An Eggsbert study on explaining Bayesian Optimisation tasks

Bayesian Optimisation (BO) is a family of methods for finding optimal parameters when the underlying function to be optimised is unknown. BO is used, for example, for hyperparameter tuning in machine learning and as an expert support tool for tuning cyberphysical systems. For settings where humans are involved in the tuning task, methods have been developed to explain BO (Explainable Bayesian Optimization, XBO). However, there is little guidance on how to present XBO results to humans so that they can tune the system effectively and efficiently. In this paper, we investigate how the XBO explanation format affects users' task performance, task load, understanding and trust in XBO. We chose a task that is accessible to a wide range of users. Specifically, we set up an egg cooking scenario with 6 parameters that participants had to adjust to achieve a perfect soft-boiled egg. We compared three different explanation formats: a bar chart, a list of rules and a textual explanation in a between-subjects online study with 213 participants. Our results show that adding any type of explanation increases task success, reduces the number of trials needed to achieve success, and improves comprehension and confidence. While explanations add more information for participants to process, we found no increase in user task load. We also found that the aforementioned results were independent of the explanation format; all formats had a similar effect. This is an interesting finding for practical applications, as it suggests that explanations can be added to BO tuning tasks without the burden of designing or selecting specific explanation formats. In the future, it would be interesting to investigate scenarios of prolonged use of the explanation formats and whether they have different effects on users' mental models of the underlying system.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Enabling Verification of Deep Neural Networks in Perception Tasks Using Fuzzy Logic and Concept Embeddings

One major drawback of deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for use in safety critical applications is their black-box nature. This makes it hard to verify or monitor complex, symbolic requirements on already trained computer vision CNNs. In this work, we present a simple, yet effective, approach to verify that a CNN complies with symbolic predicate logic rules which relate visual concepts. It is the first that (1) does not modify the CNN, (2) may use visual concepts that are no CNN in- or output feature, and (3) can leverage continuous CNN confidence outputs. To achieve this, we newly combine methods from explainable artificial intelligence and logic: First, using supervised concept embedding analysis, the output of a CNN is post-hoc enriched by concept outputs. Second, rules from prior knowledge are modelled as truth functions that accept the CNN outputs, and can be evaluated with little computational overhead. We here investigate the use of fuzzy logic, i.e., continuous truth values, and of proper output calibration, which both theoretically and practically show slight benefits. Applicability is demonstrated on state-of-the-art object detectors for three verification use-cases, where monitoring of rule breaches can reveal detection errors.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access