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

Martin Pawelczyk

Martin Pawelczyk contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine Learningcs.CYArtificial IntelligenceCryptography and Security

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
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

6 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Machine Unlearning Fails to Remove Data Poisoning Attacks

We revisit the efficacy of several practical methods for approximate machine unlearning developed for large-scale deep learning. In addition to complying with data deletion requests, one often-cited potential application for unlearning methods is to remove the effects of poisoned data. We experimentally demonstrate that, while existing unlearning methods have been demonstrated to be effective in a number of settings, they fail to remove the effects of data poisoning across a variety of types of poisoning attacks (indiscriminate, targeted, and a newly-introduced Gaussian poisoning attack) and models (image classifiers and LLMs); even when granted a relatively large compute budget. In order to precisely characterize unlearning efficacy, we introduce new evaluation metrics for unlearning based on data poisoning. Our results suggest that a broader perspective, including a wider variety of evaluations, are required to avoid a false sense of confidence in machine unlearning procedures for deep learning without provable guarantees. Moreover, while unlearning methods show some signs of being useful to efficiently remove poisoned data without having to retrain, our work suggests that these methods are not yet ``ready for prime time,'' and currently provide limited benefit over retraining.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Rethinking Stability for Attribution-based Explanations

As attribution-based explanation methods are increasingly used to establish model trustworthiness in high-stakes situations, it is critical to ensure that these explanations are stable, e.g., robust to infinitesimal perturbations to an input. However, previous works have shown that state-of-the-art explanation methods generate unstable explanations. Here, we introduce metrics to quantify the stability of an explanation and show that several popular explanation methods are unstable. In particular, we propose new Relative Stability metrics that measure the change in output explanation with respect to change in input, model representation, or output of the underlying predictor. Finally, our experimental evaluation with three real-world datasets demonstrates interesting insights for seven explanation methods and different stability metrics.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Gaussian Experts Selection using Graphical Models

Local approximations are popular methods to scale Gaussian processes (GPs) to big data. Local approximations reduce time complexity by dividing the original dataset into subsets and training a local expert on each subset. Aggregating the experts' prediction is done assuming either conditional dependence or independence between the experts. Imposing the \emph{conditional independence assumption} (CI) between the experts renders the aggregation of different expert predictions time efficient at the cost of poor uncertainty quantification. On the other hand, modeling dependent experts can provide precise predictions and uncertainty quantification at the expense of impractically high computational costs. By eliminating weak experts via a theory-guided expert selection step, we substantially reduce the computational cost of aggregating dependent experts while ensuring calibrated uncertainty quantification. We leverage techniques from the literature on undirected graphical models, using sparse precision matrices that encode conditional dependencies between experts to select the most important experts. Moreov

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Learning Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Tabular Data

Counterfactual explanations can be obtained by identifying the smallest change made to a feature vector to qualitatively influence a prediction; for example, from 'loan rejected' to 'awarded' or from 'high risk of cardiovascular disease' to 'low risk'. Previous approaches often emphasized that counterfactuals should be easily interpretable to humans, motivating sparse solutions with few changes to the feature vectors. However, these approaches would not ensure that the produced counterfactuals be proximate (i.e., not local outliers) and connected to regions with substantial data density (i.e., close to correctly classified observations), two requirements known as counterfactual faithfulness. These requirements are fundamental when making suggestions to individuals that are indeed attainable. Our contribution is twofold. On one hand, we suggest to complement the catalogue of counterfactual quality measures [1] using a criterion to quantify the degree of difficulty for a certain counterfactual suggestion. On the other hand, drawing ideas from the manifold learning literature, we develop a framework that generates attainable counterfactuals. We suggest the counterfactual conditional heterogeneous variational autoencoder (C-CHVAE) to identify attainable counterfactuals that lie within regions of high data density.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Leveraging Model Inherent Variable Importance for Stable Online Feature Selection

Feature selection can be a crucial factor in obtaining robust and accurate predictions. Online feature selection models, however, operate under considerable restrictions; they need to efficiently extract salient input features based on a bounded set of observations, while enabling robust and accurate predictions. In this work, we introduce FIRES, a novel framework for online feature selection. The proposed feature weighting mechanism leverages the importance information inherent in the parameters of a predictive model. By treating model parameters as random variables, we can penalize features with high uncertainty and thus generate more stable feature sets. Our framework is generic in that it leaves the choice of the underlying model to the user. Strikingly, experiments suggest that the model complexity has only a minor effect on the discriminative power and stability of the selected feature sets. In fact, using a simple linear model, FIRES obtains feature sets that compete with state-of-the-art methods, while dramatically reducing computation time. In addition, experiments show that the proposed framework is clearly superior in terms of feature selection stability.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On Counterfactual Explanations under Predictive Multiplicity

Counterfactual explanations are usually obtained by identifying the smallest change made to an input to change a prediction made by a fixed model (hereafter called sparse methods). Recent work, however, has revitalized an old insight: there often does not exist one superior solution to a prediction problem with respect to commonly used measures of interest (e.g. error rate). In fact, often multiple different classifiers give almost equal solutions. This phenomenon is known as predictive multiplicity (Breiman, 2001; Marx et al., 2019). In this work, we derive a general upper bound for the costs of counterfactual explanations under predictive multiplicity. Most notably, it depends on a discrepancy notion between two classifiers, which describes how differently they treat negatively predicted individuals. We then compare sparse and data support approaches empirically on real-world data. The results show that data support methods are more robust to multiplicity of different models. At the same time, we show that those methods have provably higher cost of generating counterfactual explanations under one fixed model. In summary, our theoretical and empiricaln results challenge the commonly held view that counterfactual recommendations should be sparse in general.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access