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

Sara Hooker

Sara Hooker contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine LearningComputer Visioncs.CYArtificial IntelligenceHardware Architecture

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
5topics
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

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Estimating Example Difficulty Using Variance of Gradients

In machine learning, a question of great interest is understanding what examples are challenging for a model to classify. Identifying atypical examples ensures the safe deployment of models, isolates samples that require further human inspection and provides interpretability into model behavior. In this work, we propose Variance of Gradients (VoG) as a valuable and efficient metric to rank data by difficulty and to surface a tractable subset of the most challenging examples for human-in-the-loop auditing. We show that data points with high VoG scores are far more difficult for the model to learn and over-index on corrupted or memorized examples. Further, restricting the evaluation to the test set instances with the lowest VoG improves the model's generalization performance. Finally, we show that VoG is a valuable and efficient ranking for out-of-distribution detection.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Studying the impact of magnitude pruning on contrastive learning methods

We study the impact of different pruning techniques on the representation learned by deep neural networks trained with contrastive loss functions. Our work finds that at high sparsity levels, contrastive learning results in a higher number of misclassified examples relative to models trained with traditional cross-entropy loss. To understand this pronounced difference, we use metrics such as the number of PIEs (Hooker et al., 2019), Q-Score (Kalibhat et al., 2022), and PD-Score (Baldock et al., 2021) to measure the impact of pruning on the learned representation quality. Our analysis suggests the schedule of the pruning method implementation matters. We find that the negative impact of sparsity on the quality of the learned representation is the highest when pruning is introduced early on in the training phase.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

When less is more: Simplifying inputs aids neural network understanding

How do neural network image classifiers respond to simpler and simpler inputs? And what do such responses reveal about the learning process? To answer these questions, we need a clear measure of input simplicity (or inversely, complexity), an optimization objective that correlates with simplification, and a framework to incorporate such objective into training and inference. Lastly we need a variety of testbeds to experiment and evaluate the impact of such simplification on learning. In this work, we measure simplicity with the encoding bit size given by a pretrained generative model, and minimize the bit size to simplify inputs in training and inference. We investigate the effect of such simplification in several scenarios: conventional training, dataset condensation and post-hoc explanations. In all settings, inputs are simplified along with the original classification task, and we investigate the trade-off between input simplicity and task performance. For images with injected distractors, such simplification naturally removes superfluous information. For dataset condensation, we find that inputs can be simplified with almost no accuracy degradation. When used in post-hoc explanation, our learning-based simplification approach offers a valuable new tool to explore the basis of network decisions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The Hardware Lottery

Hardware, systems and algorithms research communities have historically had different incentive structures and fluctuating motivation to engage with each other explicitly. This historical treatment is odd given that hardware and software have frequently determined which research ideas succeed (and fail). This essay introduces the term hardware lottery to describe when a research idea wins because it is suited to the available software and hardware and not because the idea is superior to alternative research directions. Examples from early computer science history illustrate how hardware lotteries can delay research progress by casting successful ideas as failures. These lessons are particularly salient given the advent of domain specialized hardware which make it increasingly costly to stray off of the beaten path of research ideas. This essay posits that the gains from progress in computing are likely to become even more uneven, with certain research directions moving into the fast-lane while progress on others is further obstructed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims

With the recent wave of progress in artificial intelligence (AI) has come a growing awareness of the large-scale impacts of AI systems, and recognition that existing regulations and norms in industry and academia are insufficient to ensure responsible AI development. In order for AI developers to earn trust from system users, customers, civil society, governments, and other stakeholders that they are building AI responsibly, they will need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. Those outside of a given organization also need effective means of scrutinizing such claims. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems and their associated development processes, with a focus on providing evidence about the safety, security, fairness, and privacy protection of AI systems. We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access