Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Yamini Bansal
dblp:222/3182
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
3as first author
4since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 3 first-author · 4 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
6 papers |
Learning theory · 29% Representation and self-supervised learning · 22% Deep learning architectures and training · 22% |
Topics — the 15 heaviest of 16, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › in-context learning
few-shot learning with large language models |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Few-shot Learning for Machine Translation · ICML 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Machine translation › low-resource machine translation
few-shot machine translation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Few-shot Learning for Machine Translation · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › scaling laws
data scaling laws |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Data Scaling Laws in NMT: The Effect of Noise and Architecture · ICML 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Machine translation
neural machine translation |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Data Scaling Laws in NMT: The Effect of Noise and Architecture · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
scaling laws |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Data Scaling Laws in NMT: The Effect of Noise and Architecture · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization bounds |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | For self-supervised learning, Rationality implies generalization, provably · ICLR 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization
generalization theory |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | For self-supervised learning, Rationality implies generalization, provably · ICLR 2021 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
model stitching |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Revisiting Model Stitching to Compare Neural Representations · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation analysis
representation similarity |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Revisiting Model Stitching to Compare Neural Representations · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
training dynamics |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Revisiting Model Stitching to Compare Neural Representations · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › over-parameterization
double descent |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data Hurt · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
information bottleneck |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | On the Information Bottleneck Theory of Deep Learning · ICLR (Poster) 2018 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
information-theoretic representation learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | On the Information Bottleneck Theory of Deep Learning · ICLR (Poster) 2018 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
neural network theory |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | On the Information Bottleneck Theory of Deep Learning · ICLR (Poster) 2018 |
Natural language and speech › Machine translation
controllable machine translation |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Few-shot Learning for Machine Translation · ICML 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
transformer decoder · 0.7self-supervised learning · 0.7in-context learning · 0.7power-law analysis · 0.6back-translation · 0.6model stitching · 0.5centered kernel alignment · 0.5information theory · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Few-shot Learning for Machine TranslationabstractWe demonstrate the potential of few-shot translation systems, trained with unpaired language data, for both high and low-resource language pairs. We show that with only 5 examples of high-quality translation data shown at inference, a transformer decoder-only model trained solely with self-supervised learning, is able to match specialized supervised state-of-the-art models as well as more general commercial translation systems. In particular, we outperform the best performing system on the WMT'21 English-Chinese news translation task by only using five examples of English-Chinese parallel data at inference. Furthermore, the resulting models are two orders of magnitude smaller than state-of-the-art language models. We then analyze the factors which impact the performance of few-shot translation systems, and highlight that the quality of the few-shot demonstrations heavily determines the quality of the translations generated by our models. Finally, we show that the few-shot paradigm also provides a way to control certain attributes of the translation --- we show that we are able to control for regional varieties and formality using only a five examples at inference, paving the way towards controllable machine translation systems. Xavier Garcia, Yamini Bansal, Colin Cherry, George F. Foster, Maxim Krikun, Melvin Johnson, Orhan Firat |
ICML | 2 |
| 2022 | Data Scaling Laws in NMT: The Effect of Noise and ArchitectureabstractIn this work, we study the effect of varying the architecture and training data quality on the data scaling properties of Neural Machine Translation (NMT). First, we establish that the test loss of encoder-decoder transformer models scales as a power law in the number of training samples, with a dependence on the model size. Then, we systematically vary aspects of the training setup to understand how they impact the data scaling laws. In particular, we change the following (1) Architecture and task setup: We compare to a transformer-LSTM hybrid, and a decoder-only transformer with a language modeling loss (2) Noise level in the training distribution: We experiment with filtering, and adding iid synthetic noise. In all the above cases, we find that the data scaling exponents are minimally impacted, suggesting that marginally worse architectures or training data can be compensated for by adding more data. Lastly, we find that using back-translated data instead of parallel data, can significantly degrade the scaling exponent. Yamini Bansal, Behrooz Ghorbani, Ankush Garg, Biao Zhang 0006, Colin Cherry, Behnam Neyshabur, Orhan Firat |
ICML | 1 |
| 2021 | For self-supervised learning, Rationality implies generalization, provably
Yamini Bansal, Gal Kaplun, Boaz Barak |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2021 | Revisiting Model Stitching to Compare Neural RepresentationsabstractWe revisit and extend model stitching (Lenc & Vedaldi 2015) as a methodology to study the internal representations of neural networks. Given two trained and frozen models $A$ and $B$, we consider a "stitched model" formed by connecting the bottom-layers of $A$ to the top-layers of $B$, with a simple trainable layer between them. We argue that model stitching is a powerful and perhaps under-appreciated tool, which reveals aspects of representations that measures such as centered kernel alignment (CKA) cannot. Through extensive experiments, we use model stitching to obtain quantitative verifications for intuitive statements such as "good networks learn similar representations", by demonstrating that good networks of the same architecture, but trained in very different ways (eg: supervised vs. self-supervised learning), can be stitched to each other without drop in performance. We also give evidence for the intuition that "more is better" by showing that representations learnt with (1) more data, (2) bigger width, or (3) more training time can be "plugged in" to weaker models to improve performance. Finally, our experiments reveal a new structural property of SGD which we call "stitching connectivity", akin to mode-connectivity: typical minima reached by SGD are all "stitching-connected" to each other. Yamini Bansal, Preetum Nakkiran, Boaz Barak |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2020 | Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data Hurt
Preetum Nakkiran, Gal Kaplun, Yamini Bansal, Tristan Yang, Boaz Barak, Ilya Sutskever |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2018 | On the Information Bottleneck Theory of Deep Learning
Andrew M. Saxe, Yamini Bansal, Joel Dapello, Madhu Advani, Artemy Kolchinsky, Brendan D. Tracey, David D. Cox |
ICLR (Poster) | 2 |