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

Sebastian Vollmer

Sebastian Vollmer contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine LearningApplicationsMethodologyCryptography and Securitycs.CYmath.STStatistics Theory

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
7topics
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)

preprint2022arXiv

Avoiding C-hacking when evaluating survival distribution predictions with discrimination measures

In this paper we consider how to evaluate survival distribution predictions with measures of discrimination. This is a non-trivial problem as discrimination measures are the most commonly used in survival analysis and yet there is no clear method to derive a risk prediction from a distribution prediction. We survey methods proposed in literature and software and consider their respective advantages and disadvantages. Whilst distributions are frequently evaluated by discrimination measures, we find that the method for doing so is rarely described in the literature and often leads to unfair comparisons. We find that the most robust method of reducing a distribution to a risk is to sum over the predicted cumulative hazard. We recommend that machine learning survival analysis software implements clear transformations between distribution and risk predictions in order to allow more transparent and accessible model evaluation. The code used in the final experiment is available at https://github.com/RaphaelS1/distribution_discrimination.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Flexible Group Fairness Metrics for Survival Analysis

Algorithmic fairness is an increasingly important field concerned with detecting and mitigating biases in machine learning models. There has been a wealth of literature for algorithmic fairness in regression and classification however there has been little exploration of the field for survival analysis. Survival analysis is the prediction task in which one attempts to predict the probability of an event occurring over time. Survival predictions are particularly important in sensitive settings such as when utilising machine learning for diagnosis and prognosis of patients. In this paper we explore how to utilise existing survival metrics to measure bias with group fairness metrics. We explore this in an empirical experiment with 29 survival datasets and 8 measures. We find that measures of discrimination are able to capture bias well whereas there is less clarity with measures of calibration and scoring rules. We suggest further areas for research including prediction-based fairness metrics for distribution predictions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Mitigating Statistical Bias within Differentially Private Synthetic Data

Increasing interest in privacy-preserving machine learning has led to new and evolved approaches for generating private synthetic data from undisclosed real data. However, mechanisms of privacy preservation can significantly reduce the utility of synthetic data, which in turn impacts downstream tasks such as learning predictive models or inference. We propose several re-weighting strategies using privatised likelihood ratios that not only mitigate statistical bias of downstream estimators but also have general applicability to differentially private generative models. Through large-scale empirical evaluation, we show that private importance weighting provides simple and effective privacy-compliant augmentation for general applications of synthetic data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Recommendation and Risk Classification System for Connecting Rough Sleepers to Essential Outreach Services

Rough sleeping is a chronic problem faced by some of the most disadvantaged people in modern society. This paper describes work carried out in partnership with Homeless Link, a UK-based charity, in developing a data-driven approach to assess the quality of incoming alerts from members of the public aimed at connecting people sleeping rough on the streets with outreach service providers. Alerts are prioritised based on the predicted likelihood of successfully connecting with the rough sleeper, helping to address capacity limitations and to quickly, effectively, and equitably process all of the alerts that they receive. Initial evaluation concludes that our approach increases the rate at which rough sleepers are found following a referral by at least 15\% based on labelled data, implying a greater overall increase when the alerts with unknown outcomes are considered, and suggesting the benefit in a trial taking place over a longer period to assess the models in practice. The discussion and modelling process is done with careful considerations of ethics, transparency and explainability due to the sensitive nature of the data in this context and the vulnerability of the people that are affected.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access