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

Yaniv Yacoby

Yaniv Yacoby contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine LearningHuman-Computer Interaction

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
2topics
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

"If it didn't happen, why would I change my decision?": How Judges Respond to Counterfactual Explanations for the Public Safety Assessment

Many researchers and policymakers have expressed excitement about algorithmic explanations enabling more fair and responsible decision-making. However, recent experimental studies have found that explanations do not always improve human use of algorithmic advice. In this study, we shed light on how people interpret and respond to counterfactual explanations (CFEs) -- explanations that show how a model's output would change with marginal changes to its input(s) -- in the context of pretrial risk assessment instruments (PRAIs). We ran think-aloud trials with eight sitting U.S. state court judges, providing them with recommendations from a PRAI that includes CFEs. We found that the CFEs did not alter the judges' decisions. At first, judges misinterpreted the counterfactuals as real -- rather than hypothetical -- changes to defendants. Once judges understood what the counterfactuals meant, they ignored them, stating their role is only to make decisions regarding the actual defendant in question. The judges also expressed a mix of reasons for ignoring or following the advice of the PRAI without CFEs. These results add to the literature detailing the unexpected ways in which people respond to algorithms and explanations. They also highlight new challenges associated with improving human-algorithm collaborations through explanations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Failure Modes of Variational Autoencoders and Their Effects on Downstream Tasks

Variational Auto-encoders (VAEs) are deep generative latent variable models that are widely used for a number of downstream tasks. While it has been demonstrated that VAE training can suffer from a number of pathologies, existing literature lacks characterizations of exactly when these pathologies occur and how they impact downstream task performance. In this paper, we concretely characterize conditions under which VAE training exhibits pathologies and connect these failure modes to undesirable effects on specific downstream tasks, such as learning compressed and disentangled representations, adversarial robustness, and semi-supervised learning.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

BaCOUn: Bayesian Classifers with Out-of-Distribution Uncertainty

Traditional training of deep classifiers yields overconfident models that are not reliable under dataset shift. We propose a Bayesian framework to obtain reliable uncertainty estimates for deep classifiers. Our approach consists of a plug-in "generator" used to augment the data with an additional class of points that lie on the boundary of the training data, followed by Bayesian inference on top of features that are trained to distinguish these "out-of-distribution" points.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Characterizing and Avoiding Problematic Global Optima of Variational Autoencoders

Variational Auto-encoders (VAEs) are deep generative latent variable models consisting of two components: a generative model that captures a data distribution p(x) by transforming a distribution p(z) over latent space, and an inference model that infers likely latent codes for each data point (Kingma and Welling, 2013). Recent work shows that traditional training methods tend to yield solutions that violate modeling desiderata: (1) the learned generative model captures the observed data distribution but does so while ignoring the latent codes, resulting in codes that do not represent the data (e.g. van den Oord et al. (2017); Kim et al. (2018)); (2) the aggregate of the learned latent codes does not match the prior p(z). This mismatch means that the learned generative model will be unable to generate realistic data with samples from p(z)(e.g. Makhzani et al. (2015); Tomczak and Welling (2017)). In this paper, we demonstrate that both issues stem from the fact that the global optima of the VAE training objective often correspond to undesirable solutions. Our analysis builds on two observations: (1) the generative model is unidentifiable - there exist many generative models that explain the data equally well, each with different (and potentially unwanted) properties and (2) bias in the VAE objective - the VAE objective may prefer generative models that explain the data poorly but have posteriors that are easy to approximate. We present a novel inference method, LiBI, mitigating the problems identified in our analysis. On synthetic datasets, we show that LiBI can learn generative models that capture the data distribution and inference models that better satisfy modeling assumptions when traditional methods struggle to do so.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access