Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Chris Kolb
dblp:259/3120
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
3as first author
5since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 3 first-author · 5 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
3 papers |
Efficient and distributed learning · 34% Deep learning architectures and training · 27% Trustworthy machine learning · 22% |
Topics — the 13 heaviest of 13, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › sparse learning
group sparsity |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Differentiable Sparsity via $D$-Gating: Simple and Versatile Structured Penalization · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
model compression |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Deep Weight Factorization: Sparse Learning Through the Lens of Artificial Symmetries · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression
neural network compression |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Differentiable Sparsity via $D$-Gating: Simple and Versatile Structured Penalization · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › regularized risk minimization
nonsmooth regularization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Differentiable Sparsity via $D$-Gating: Simple and Versatile Structured Penalization · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression
pruning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Deep Weight Factorization: Sparse Learning Through the Lens of Artificial Symmetries · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › regularization
sparse regularization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Deep Weight Factorization: Sparse Learning Through the Lens of Artificial Symmetries · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression › sparsity
structured sparsity |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Differentiable Sparsity via $D$-Gating: Simple and Versatile Structured Penalization · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
weight decomposition |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Deep Weight Factorization: Sparse Learning Through the Lens of Artificial Symmetries · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
bias mitigation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Generalizing Orthogonalization for Models with Non-Linearities · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Generalizing Orthogonalization for Models with Non-Linearities · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Generalizing Orthogonalization for Models with Non-Linearities · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
orthogonalization |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Generalizing Orthogonalization for Models with Non-Linearities · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
training dynamics |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Deep Weight Factorization: Sparse Learning Through the Lens of Artificial Symmetries · ICLR 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
stochastic gradient descent · 1.7l2 regularization · 0.9l1 regularization · 0.9gradient flow analysis · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Smoothing the Edges: Smooth Optimization for Sparse Regularization Using Hadamard OverparametrizationabstractAbstract In recent years, overparametrization has received considerable attention in various fields, shown to accelerate training and promote simplicity. However, few works study the induced sparse regularization of the original parameters that is caused by combining overparametrization with explicit smooth regularization. Here, we present a unifying framework for smooth optimization of explicitly regularized objectives for (structured) sparsity. These non-smooth and possibly non-convex problems typically rely on solvers tailored to specific models or regularizers and have not been widely adopted in deep learning. In contrast, our method promises fully differentiable and approximation-free optimization for sparse regularizers and is thus compatible with the ubiquitous gradient descent paradigm. The proposed optimization transfer comprises overparameterization of selected parameters and a change of penalties. We prove that the surrogate objective is equivalent in the sense of identical global and local minima, thereby avoiding the introduction of spurious solutions. We comprehensively review sparsity-inducing parametrizations across different fields and combine them in our explicit surrogate regularization framework. We further extend their scope, point out improvements and present novel parametrizations. Numerical experiments further demonstrate the correctness and effectiveness of our approach on several sparse learning problems from high-dimensional regression to sparse neural network training. Chris Kolb, Christian L. Müller, Bernd Bischl, David Rügamer |
Mach. Learn. | 1 |
| 2025 | Deep Weight Factorization: Sparse Learning Through the Lens of Artificial SymmetriesabstractSparse regularization techniques are well-established in machine learning, yet their application in neural networks remains challenging due to the non-differentiability of penalties like the $L_1$ norm, which is incompatible with stochastic gradient descent. A promising alternative is shallow weight factorization, where weights are decomposed into two factors, allowing for smooth optimization of $L_1$-penalized neural networks by adding differentiable $L_2$ regularization to the factors.
In this work, we introduce deep weight factorization, extending previous shallow approaches to more than two factors. We theoretically establish equivalence of our deep factorization with non-convex sparse regularization and analyze its impact on training dynamics and optimization. Due to the limitations posed by standard training practices, we propose a tailored initialization scheme and identify important learning rate requirements necessary for training factorized networks.
We demonstrate the effectiveness of our deep weight factorization through experiments on various architectures and datasets, consistently outperforming its shallow counterpart and widely used pruning methods. Chris Kolb, Bernd Bischl, David Rügamer |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2025 | Differentiable Sparsity via $D$-Gating: Simple and Versatile Structured PenalizationabstractStructured sparsity regularization offers a principled way to compact neural networks, but its non-differentiability breaks compatibility with conventional stochastic gradient descent and requires either specialized optimizers or additional post-hoc pruning without formal guarantees. In this work, we propose $D$-Gating, a fully differentiable structured overparameterization that splits each group of weights into a primary weight vector and multiple scalar gating factors. We prove that any local minimum under $D$-Gating is also a local minimum using non-smooth structured $L_{2,2/D}$ penalization, and further show that the $D$-Gating objective converges at least exponentially fast to the $L_{2,2/D}$–regularized loss in the gradient flow limit. Together, our results show that $D$-Gating is theoretically equivalent to solving the original group sparsity problem, yet induces distinct learning dynamics that evolve from a non-sparse regime into sparse optimization. We validate our theory across vision, language, and tabular tasks, where $D$-Gating consistently delivers strong performance–sparsity tradeoffs and outperforms both direct optimization of structured penalties and conventional pruning baselines. Chris Kolb, Laetitia Frost, Bernd Bischl, David Rügamer |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2024 | Generalizing Orthogonalization for Models with Non-LinearitiesabstractThe complexity of black-box algorithms can lead to various challenges, including the introduction of biases. These biases present immediate risks in the algorithms’ application. It was, for instance, shown that neural networks can deduce racial information solely from a patient's X-ray scan, a task beyond the capability of medical experts. If this fact is not known to the medical expert, automatic decision-making based on this algorithm could lead to prescribing a treatment (purely) based on racial information. While current methodologies allow for the "orthogonalization" or "normalization" of neural networks with respect to such information, existing approaches are grounded in linear models. Our paper advances the discourse by introducing corrections for non-linearities such as ReLU activations. Our approach also encompasses scalar and tensor-valued predictions, facilitating its integration into neural network architectures. Through extensive experiments, we validate our method's effectiveness in safeguarding sensitive data in generalized linear models, normalizing convolutional neural networks for metadata, and rectifying pre-existing embeddings for undesired attributes. David Rügamer, Chris Kolb, Lucas Kook, Thomas Nagler |
ICML | 2 |
| 2024 | How Inverse Conditional Flows Can Serve as a Substitute for Distributional RegressionabstractNeural network representations of simple models, such as linear regression, are being studied increasingly to better understand the underlying principles of deep learning algorithms. However, neural representations of distributional regression models, such as the Cox model, have received little attention so far. We close this gap by proposing a framework for distributional regression using inverse flow transformations (DRIFT), which includes neural representations of the aforementioned models. We empirically demonstrate that the neural representations of models in DRIFT can serve as a substitute for their classical statistical counterparts in several applications involving continuous, ordered, time-series, and survival outcomes. We confirm that models in DRIFT empirically match the performance of several statistical methods in terms of estimation of partial effects, prediction, and aleatoric uncertainty quantification. DRIFT covers both interpretable statistical models and flexible neural networks opening up new avenues in both statistical modeling and deep learning. Lucas Kook, Chris Kolb, Philipp Schiele, Daniel Dold, Marcel Arpogaus, Cornelius Fritz, Philipp F. M. Baumann, Philipp Kopper, Tobias Pielok, Emilio Dorigatti, David Rügamer |
UAI | 2 |