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

Hana Chockler

Hana Chockler contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningComputer Vision

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
3topics
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

6 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

A Causal Analysis of Harm

As autonomous systems rapidly become ubiquitous, there is a growing need for a legal and regulatory framework to address when and how such a system harms someone. There have been several attempts within the philosophy literature to define harm, but none of them has proven capable of dealing with with the many examples that have been presented, leading some to suggest that the notion of harm should be abandoned and "replaced by more well-behaved notions". As harm is generally something that is caused, most of these definitions have involved causality at some level. Yet surprisingly, none of them makes use of causal models and the definitions of actual causality that they can express. In this paper we formally define a qualitative notion of harm that uses causal models and is based on a well-known definition of actual causality (Halpern, 2016). The key novelty of our definition is that it is based on contrastive causation and uses a default utility to which the utility of actual outcomes is compared. We show that our definition is able to handle the examples from the literature, and illustrate its importance for reasoning about situations involving autonomous systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

A Study of Demographic Bias in CNN-based Brain MR Segmentation

Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are increasingly being used to automate the segmentation of brain structures in magnetic resonance (MR) images for research studies. In other applications, CNN models have been shown to exhibit bias against certain demographic groups when they are under-represented in the training sets. In this work, we investigate whether CNN models for brain MR segmentation have the potential to contain sex or race bias when trained with imbalanced training sets. We train multiple instances of the FastSurferCNN model using different levels of sex imbalance in white subjects. We evaluate the performance of these models separately for white male and white female test sets to assess sex bias, and furthermore evaluate them on black male and black female test sets to assess potential racial bias. We find significant sex and race bias effects in segmentation model performance. The biases have a strong spatial component, with some brain regions exhibiting much stronger bias than others. Overall, our results suggest that race bias is more significant than sex bias. Our study demonstrates the importance of considering race and sex balance when forming training sets for CNN-based brain MR segmentation, to avoid maintaining or even exacerbating existing health inequalities through biased research study findings.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Domain Knowledge in A*-Based Causal Discovery

Causal discovery has become a vital tool for scientists and practitioners wanting to discover causal relationships from observational data. While most previous approaches to causal discovery have implicitly assumed that no expert domain knowledge is available, practitioners can often provide such domain knowledge from prior experience. Recent work has incorporated domain knowledge into constraint-based causal discovery. The majority of such constraint-based methods, however, assume causal faithfulness, which has been shown to be frequently violated in practice. Consequently, there has been renewed attention towards exact-search score-based causal discovery methods, which do not assume causal faithfulness, such as A*-based methods. However, there has been no consideration of these methods in the context of domain knowledge. In this work, we focus on efficiently integrating several types of domain knowledge into A*-based causal discovery. In doing so, we discuss and explain how domain knowledge can reduce the graph search space and then provide an analysis of the potential computational gains. We support these findings with experiments on synthetic and real data, showing that even small amounts of domain knowledge can dramatically speed up A*-based causal discovery and improve its performance and practicality.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Vision Checklist: Towards Testable Error Analysis of Image Models to Help System Designers Interrogate Model Capabilities

Using large pre-trained models for image recognition tasks is becoming increasingly common owing to the well acknowledged success of recent models like vision transformers and other CNN-based models like VGG and Resnet. The high accuracy of these models on benchmark tasks has translated into their practical use across many domains including safety-critical applications like autonomous driving and medical diagnostics. Despite their widespread use, image models have been shown to be fragile to changes in the operating environment, bringing their robustness into question. There is an urgent need for methods that systematically characterise and quantify the capabilities of these models to help designers understand and provide guarantees about their safety and robustness. In this paper, we propose Vision Checklist, a framework aimed at interrogating the capabilities of a model in order to produce a report that can be used by a system designer for robustness evaluations. This framework proposes a set of perturbation operations that can be applied on the underlying data to generate test samples of different types. The perturbations reflect potential changes in operating environments, and interrogate various properties ranging from the strictly quantitative to more qualitative. Our framework is evaluated on multiple datasets like Tinyimagenet, CIFAR10, CIFAR100 and Camelyon17 and for models like ViT and Resnet. Our Vision Checklist proposes a specific set of evaluations that can be integrated into the previously proposed concept of a model card. Robustness evaluations like our checklist will be crucial in future safety evaluations of visual perception modules, and be useful for a wide range of stakeholders including designers, deployers, and regulators involved in the certification of these systems. Source code of Vision Checklist would be open for public use.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Combining Experts' Causal Judgments

Consider a policymaker who wants to decide which intervention to perform in order to change a currently undesirable situation. The policymaker has at her disposal a team of experts, each with their own understanding of the causal dependencies between different factors contributing to the outcome. The policymaker has varying degrees of confidence in the experts' opinions. She wants to combine their opinions in order to decide on the most effective intervention. We formally define the notion of an effective intervention, and then consider how experts' causal judgments can be combined in order to determine the most effective intervention. We define a notion of two causal models being \emph{compatible}, and show how compatible causal models can be merged. We then use it as the basis for combining experts' causal judgments. We also provide a definition of decomposition for causal models to cater for cases when models are incompatible. We illustrate our approach on a number of real-life examples.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Explaining Image Classifiers using Statistical Fault Localization

The black-box nature of deep neural networks (DNNs) makes it impossible to understand why a particular output is produced, creating demand for "Explainable AI". In this paper, we show that statistical fault localization (SFL) techniques from software engineering deliver high quality explanations of the outputs of DNNs, where we define an explanation as a minimal subset of features sufficient for making the same decision as for the original input. We present an algorithm and a tool called DeepCover, which synthesizes a ranking of the features of the inputs using SFL and constructs explanations for the decisions of the DNN based on this ranking. We compare explanations produced by DeepCover with those of the state-of-the-art tools GradCAM, LIME, SHAP, RISE and Extremal and show that explanations generated by DeepCover are consistently better across a broad set of experiments. On a benchmark set with known ground truth, DeepCover achieves 76.7% accuracy, which is 6% better than the second best Extremal.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access