Source author record

Martin Hirzel

Martin Hirzel appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

6works
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

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

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

An Empirical Study of Modular Bias Mitigators and Ensembles

There are several bias mitigators that can reduce algorithmic bias in machine learning models but, unfortunately, the effect of mitigators on fairness is often not stable when measured across different data splits. A popular approach to train more stable models is ensemble learning. Ensembles, such as bagging, boosting, voting, or stacking, have been successful at making predictive performance more stable. One might therefore ask whether we can combine the advantages of bias mitigators and ensembles? To explore this question, we first need bias mitigators and ensembles to work together. We built an open-source library enabling the modular composition of 10 mitigators, 4 ensembles, and their corresponding hyperparameters. Based on this library, we empirically explored the space of combinations on 13 datasets, including datasets commonly used in fairness literature plus datasets newly curated by our library. Furthermore, we distilled the results into a guidance diagram for practitioners. We hope this paper will contribute towards improving stability in bias mitigation.

preprint2022arXiv

Comments on Comments: Where Code Review and Documentation Meet

A central function of code review is to increase understanding; helping reviewers understand a code change aids in knowledge transfer and finding bugs. Comments in code largely serve a similar purpose, helping future readers understand the program. It is thus natural to study what happens when these two forms of understanding collide. We ask: what documentation-related comments do reviewers make and how do they affect understanding of the contribution? We analyze ca.700K review comments on 2,000 (Java and Python) GitHub projects, and propose several filters to identify which comments are likely to be either in response to a change in documentation and/or call for such a change. We identify 65K such cases. We next develop a taxonomy of the reviewer intents behind such "comments on comments". We find that achieving a shared understanding of the code is key: reviewer comments most often focused on clarification, followed by pointing out issues to fix, such as typos and outdated comments. Curiously, clarifying comments were frequently suggested (often verbatim) by the reviewer, indicating a desire to persist their understanding acquired during code review. We conclude with a discussion of implications of our comments-on-comments dataset for research on improving code review, including the potential benefits for automating code review.

preprint2020arXiv

Lale: Consistent Automated Machine Learning

Automated machine learning makes it easier for data scientists to develop pipelines by searching over possible choices for hyperparameters, algorithms, and even pipeline topologies. Unfortunately, the syntax for automated machine learning tools is inconsistent with manual machine learning, with each other, and with error checks. Furthermore, few tools support advanced features such as topology search or higher-order operators. This paper introduces Lale, a library of high-level Python interfaces that simplifies and unifies automated machine learning in a consistent way.

preprint2020arXiv

Mining Documentation to Extract Hyperparameter Schemas

AI automation tools need machine-readable hyperparameter schemas to define their search spaces. At the same time, AI libraries often come with good human-readable documentation. While such documentation contains most of the necessary information, it is unfortunately not ready to consume by tools. This paper describes how to automatically mine Python docstrings in AI libraries to extract JSON Schemas for their hyperparameters. We evaluate our approach on 119 transformers and estimators from three different libraries and find that it is effective at extracting machine-readable schemas. Our vision is to reduce the burden to manually create and maintain such schemas for AI automation tools and broaden the reach of automation to larger libraries and richer schemas.

preprint2020arXiv

Type Safety with JSON Subschema

JSON is a popular data format used pervasively in web APIs, cloud computing, NoSQL databases, and increasingly also machine learning. JSON Schema is a language for declaring the structure of valid JSON data. There are validators that can decide whether a JSON document is valid with respect to a schema. Unfortunately, like all instance-based testing, these validators can only show the presence and never the absence of a bug. This paper presents a complementary technique: JSON subschema checking, which can be used for static type checking with JSON Schema. Deciding whether one schema is a subschema of another is non-trivial because of the richness of the JSON Schema specification language. Given a pair of schemas, our approach first canonicalizes and simplifies both schemas, then decides the subschema question on the canonical forms, dispatching simpler subschema queries to type-specific checkers. We apply an implementation of our subschema checking algorithm to 8,548 pairs of real-world JSON schemas from different domains, demonstrating that it can decide the subschema question for most schema pairs and is always correct for schema pairs that it can decide. We hope that our work will bring more static guarantees to hard-to-debug domains, such as cloud computing and artificial intelligence.