VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jerome Sieber
dblp:268/7789 · also Jérôme Sieber
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0002-8937-7749ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 1 first-author · 4 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 2 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
2 papers |
Deep learning architectures and training · 100% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
sequence modeling |
1.6 | 2 | 2025 | Lambda-Skip Connections: the architectural component that prevents Rank Collapse · ICLR 2025 Understanding the Differences in Foundation Models: Attention, State Space Models, and Recurrent Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
state space model |
1.6 | 2 | 2025 | Lambda-Skip Connections: the architectural component that prevents Rank Collapse · ICLR 2025 Understanding the Differences in Foundation Models: Attention, State Space Models, and Recurrent Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
attention mechanism |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Understanding the Differences in Foundation Models: Attention, State Space Models, and Recurrent Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › attention mechanism › efficient attention
linear attention |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Understanding the Differences in Foundation Models: Attention, State Space Models, and Recurrent Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
skip connections |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Lambda-Skip Connections: the architectural component that prevents Rank Collapse · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
transformer |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Lambda-Skip Connections: the architectural component that prevents Rank Collapse · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
recurrent neural network |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Understanding the Differences in Foundation Models: Attention, State Space Models, and Recurrent Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
analytical analysis · 0.9ablation study · 0.9dynamical systems framework · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Lambda-Skip Connections: the architectural component that prevents Rank CollapseabstractRank collapse, a phenomenon where embedding vectors in sequence models
rapidly converge to a uniform token or equilibrium state, has recently gained at-
tention in the deep learning literature. This phenomenon leads to reduced expres-
sivity and potential training instabilities due to vanishing gradients. Empirical ev-
idence suggests that architectural components like skip connections, LayerNorm,
and MultiLayer Perceptrons (MLPs) play critical roles in mitigating rank collapse.
While this issue is well-documented for transformers, alternative sequence mod-
els, such as State Space Models (SSMs), which have recently gained prominence,
have not been thoroughly examined for similar vulnerabilities. This paper extends
the theory of rank collapse from transformers to SSMs using a unifying frame-
work that captures both architectures. We introduce a modification in the skip
connection component, termed lambda-skip connections, that provides guaran-
tees for rank collapse prevention. We present, via analytical results, a sufficient
condition to achieve the guarantee for all of the aforementioned architectures. We
also study the necessity of this condition via ablation studies and analytical exam-
ples. To our knowledge, this is the first study that provides a general guarantee to
prevent rank collapse, and that investigates rank collapse in the context of SSMs,
offering valuable understanding for both theoreticians and practitioners. Finally,
we validate our findings with experiments demonstrating the crucial role of archi-
tectural components in preventing rank collapse. Federico Arangath Joseph, Jerome Sieber, Melanie Nicole Zeilinger, Carmen Amo Alonso |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2024 | Understanding the Differences in Foundation Models: Attention, State Space Models, and Recurrent Neural NetworksabstractSoftmax attention is the principle backbone of foundation models for various artificial intelligence applications, yet its quadratic complexity in sequence length can limit its inference throughput in long-context settings. To address this challenge, alternative architectures such as linear attention, State Space Models (SSMs), and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) have been considered as more efficient alternatives. While connections between these approaches exist, such models are commonly developed in isolation and there is a lack of theoretical understanding of the shared principles underpinning these architectures and their subtle differences, greatly influencing performance and scalability. In this paper, we introduce the Dynamical Systems Framework (DSF), which allows a principled investigation of all these architectures in a common representation. Our framework facilitates rigorous comparisons, providing new insights on the distinctive characteristics of each model class. For instance, we compare linear attention and selective SSMs, detailing their differences and conditions under which both are equivalent. We also provide principled comparisons between softmax attention and other model classes, discussing the theoretical conditions under which softmax attention can be approximated. Additionally, we substantiate these new insights with empirical validations and mathematical arguments. This shows the DSF's potential to guide the systematic development of future more efficient and scalable foundation models. Jerome Sieber, Carmen Amo Alonso, Alexandre Didier, Melanie Nicole Zeilinger, Antonio Orvieto |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2023 | Chronos and CRS: Design of a miniature car-like robot and a software framework for single and multi-agent robotics and controlabstractFrom both an educational and research point of view, experiments on hardware are a key aspect of robotics and control. In the last decade, many open-source hardware and software frameworks for wheeled robots have been presented, mainly in the form of unicycles and car-like robots, with the goal of making robotics accessible to a wider audience and to support control systems development. Unicycles are usually small and inexpensive, and therefore facilitate experiments in a larger fleet, but they are not suited for high-speed motion. Car-like robots are more agile, but they are usually larger and more expensive, thus requiring more resources in terms of space and money. In order to bridge this gap, we present Chronos, a new car-like 1/28th scale robot with customized open-source electronics, and CRS, an open-source software framework for control and robotics. The CRS software framework includes the implementation of various state-of-the-art algorithms for control, estimation, and multi-agent coordination. With this work, we aim to provide easier access to hardware and reduce the engineering time needed to start new educational and research projects. Andrea Carron, Sabrina Bodmer, Lukas Vogel 0003, René Zurbrügg, David Helm, Rahel Rickenbach, Simon Muntwiler, Jerome Sieber, Melanie Nicole Zeilinger |
ICRA | 8 |
| 2021 | Design, Optimal Guidance and Control of a Low-cost Re-usable Electric Model RocketabstractIn the last decade, autonomous vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) vehicles have become increasingly important as they lower mission costs thanks to their re-usability. However, their development is complex, rendering even the basic experimental validation of the required advanced guidance and control (G & C) algorithms prohibitively time-consuming and costly. In this paper, we present the design of an inexpensive small-scale VTOL platform that can be built from off-the-shelf components for less than 1000 USD. The vehicle design mimics the first stage of a reusable launcher, making it a perfect test-bed for G & C algorithms. To control the vehicle during ascent and descent, we propose a real-time optimization-based G & C algorithm. The key features are a real-time minimum fuel and free-final-time optimal guidance combined with an offset-free tracking model predictive position controller. The vehicle hardware design and the G & C algorithm are experimentally validated both indoors and outdoor, showing reliable operation in a fully autonomous fashion with all computations done on-board and in real-time. Lukas Spannagl, Elias Hampp, Andrea Carron, Jerome Sieber, Carlo A. Pascucci, Aldo U. Zgraggen, Alexander Domahidi, Melanie Nicole Zeilinger |
IROS | 4 |