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

Koen van der Blom

Koen van der Blom contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Neural and Evolutionary ComputingSoftware EngineeringMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
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

4 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

On the Influence of the Feature Computation Budget on Per-Instance Algorithm Selection for Black-Box Optimization

Per-instance algorithm selection (PIAS) takes advantage of complementarity between a set of algorithms by deciding which algorithm to run on a given instance. This decision is based on features of the instances, which, in the context of black-box optimization (BBO), require a part of the optimization budget to be computed. This raises two questions: (a) from which fraction of the budget spent on feature computation does PIAS become worth it for BBO, and (b) which fraction of the budget optimizes the tradeoff between feature accuracy and PIAS performance. To this end, we perform a broad study where PIAS with varying sampling budgets for feature computation is compared to the single best algorithm on a broad range of algorithm selection scenarios. These scenarios consist of two portfolio sizes, three problem sets, 4 dimensionalities, and 10 target budgets. We find that PIAS is viable for the majority of tested scenarios, even when as much as a quarter of the total budget is spent on feature computation. The tradeoff for the fraction of the budget spent on feature computation to maximize the benefit of PIAS is highly dependent on the specific AS scenario. Further, on average 20 percent of PIAS loss to the virtual best solver is explained by the budget spent on feature computation, highlighting the importance of properly accounting for the feature budget.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Practices for Engineering Trustworthy Machine Learning Applications

Following the recent surge in adoption of machine learning (ML), the negative impact that improper use of ML can have on users and society is now also widely recognised. To address this issue, policy makers and other stakeholders, such as the European Commission or NIST, have proposed high-level guidelines aiming to promote trustworthy ML (i.e., lawful, ethical and robust). However, these guidelines do not specify actions to be taken by those involved in building ML systems. In this paper, we argue that guidelines related to the development of trustworthy ML can be translated to operational practices, and should become part of the ML development life cycle. Towards this goal, we ran a multi-vocal literature review, and mined operational practices from white and grey literature. Moreover, we launched a global survey to measure practice adoption and the effects of these practices. In total, we identified 14 new practices, and used them to complement an existing catalogue of ML engineering practices. Initial analysis of the survey results reveals that so far, practice adoption for trustworthy ML is relatively low. In particular, practices related to assuring security of ML components have very low adoption. Other practices enjoy slightly larger adoption, such as providing explanations to users. Our extended practice catalogue can be used by ML development teams to bridge the gap between high-level guidelines and actual development of trustworthy ML systems; it is open for review and contribution

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Adoption and Effects of Software Engineering Best Practices in Machine Learning

The increasing reliance on applications with machine learning (ML) components calls for mature engineering techniques that ensure these are built in a robust and future-proof manner. We aim to empirically determine the state of the art in how teams develop, deploy and maintain software with ML components. We mined both academic and grey literature and identified 29 engineering best practices for ML applications. We conducted a survey among 313 practitioners to determine the degree of adoption for these practices and to validate their perceived effects. Using the survey responses, we quantified practice adoption, differentiated along demographic characteristics, such as geography or team size. We also tested correlations and investigated linear and non-linear relationships between practices and their perceived effect using various statistical models. Our findings indicate, for example, that larger teams tend to adopt more practices, and that traditional software engineering practices tend to have lower adoption than ML specific practices. Also, the statistical models can accurately predict perceived effects such as agility, software quality and traceability, from the degree of adoption for specific sets of practices. Combining practice adoption rates with practice importance, as revealed by statistical models, we identify practices that are important but have low adoption, as well as practices that are widely adopted but are less important for the effects we studied. Overall, our survey and the analysis of responses received provide a quantitative basis for assessment and step-wise improvement of practice adoption by ML teams.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Towards Realistic Optimization Benchmarks: A Questionnaire on the Properties of Real-World Problems

Benchmarks are a useful tool for empirical performance comparisons. However, one of the main shortcomings of existing benchmarks is that it remains largely unclear how they relate to real-world problems. What does an algorithm's performance on a benchmark say about its potential on a specific real-world problem? This work aims to identify properties of real-world problems through a questionnaire on real-world single-, multi-, and many-objective optimization problems. Based on initial responses, a few challenges that have to be considered in the design of realistic benchmarks can already be identified. A key point for future work is to gather more responses to the questionnaire to allow an analysis of common combinations of properties. In turn, such common combinations can then be included in improved benchmark suites. To gather more data, the reader is invited to participate in the questionnaire at: https://tinyurl.com/opt-survey

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access