Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Tom B. Brown
dblp:211/7884
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-authorSecurity and privacy · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
4 papers |
Reinforcement learning · 32% Language models and text generation · 24% Generative modeling · 17% | |
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Security and privacy of machine learning · 100% |
Topics — the 12 heaviest of 14, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model › knowledge in language models › memorization
memorization in language models |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models · USENIX Security Symposium 2021 |
Security and privacy of machine learning › privacy attack
training data extraction |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models · USENIX Security Symposium 2021 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › neural language model
autoregressive language model |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Language Models are Few-Shot Learners · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
few-shot learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Language Models are Few-Shot Learners · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
generative adversarial network |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Is Generator Conditioning Causally Related to GAN Performance? · ICML 2018 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
generative model evaluation |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Is Generator Conditioning Causally Related to GAN Performance? · ICML 2018 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Is Generator Conditioning Causally Related to GAN Performance? · ICML 2018 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
human feedback |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences · NIPS 2017 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › preference learning
human preference learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences · NIPS 2017 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reinforcement learning from human feedback
preference-based reinforcement learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences · NIPS 2017 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
reward learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences · NIPS 2017 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
actor-critic methods |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences · NIPS 2017 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
in-context learning · 0.4autoregressive language model · 0.4regularization · 0.3jacobian clamping · 0.3trajectory comparison · 0.3human preference query · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models
Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom B. Brown, Dawn Song, Úlfar Erlingsson, Alina Oprea, Colin Raffel |
USENIX Security Symposium | 8 |
| 2020 | Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersabstractWe demonstrate that scaling up language models greatly improves task-agnostic, few-shot performance, sometimes even becoming competitive with prior state-of-the-art fine-tuning approaches. Specifically, we train GPT-3, an autoregressive language model with 175 billion parameters, 10x more than any previous non-sparse language model, and test its performance in the few-shot setting. For all tasks, GPT-3 is applied without any gradient updates or fine-tuning, with tasks and few-shot demonstrations specified purely via text interaction with the model. GPT-3 achieves strong performance on many NLP datasets, including translation, question-answering, and cloze tasks. We also identify some datasets where GPT-3's few-shot learning still struggles, as well as some datasets where GPT-3 faces methodological issues related to training on large web corpora. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Thomas Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeff Wu 0003, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen 0003, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, Dario Amodei |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2018 | Is Generator Conditioning Causally Related to GAN Performance?abstractRecent work suggests that controlling the entire distribution of Jacobian singular values is an important design consideration in deep learning. Motivated by this, we study the distribution of singular values of the Jacobian of the generator in Generative Adversarial Networks. We find that this Jacobian generally becomes ill-conditioned at the beginning of training. Moreover, we find that the average (across the latent space) conditioning of the generator is highly predictive of two other ad-hoc metrics for measuring the “quality” of trained GANs: the Inception Score and the Frechet Inception Distance. We then test the hypothesis that this relationship is causal by proposing a “regularization” technique (called Jacobian Clamping) that softly penalizes the condition number of the generator Jacobian. Jacobian Clamping improves the mean score for nearly all datasets on which we tested it. It also greatly reduces inter-run variance of the aforementioned scores, addressing (at least partially) one of the main criticisms of GANs. Augustus Odena, Jacob Buckman, Catherine Olsson, Tom B. Brown, Chris Olah, Colin Raffel, Ian J. Goodfellow |
ICML | 4 |
| 2017 | Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human PreferencesabstractFor sophisticated reinforcement learning (RL) systems to interact usefully with real-world environments, we need to communicate complex goals to these systems. In this work, we explore goals defined in terms of (non-expert) human preferences between pairs of trajectory segments. Our approach separates learning the goal from learning the behavior to achieve it. We show that this approach can effectively solve complex RL tasks without access to the reward function, including Atari games and simulated robot locomotion, while providing feedback on about 0.1% of our agent's interactions with the environment. This reduces the cost of human oversight far enough that it can be practically applied to state-of-the-art RL systems. To demonstrate the flexibility of our approach, we show that we can successfully train complex novel behaviors with about an hour of human time. These behaviors and environments are considerably more complex than any which have been previously learned from human feedback. Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom B. Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, Dario Amodei |
NIPS | 3 |