Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Adam X. Yang
dblp:276/1013 · also Adam Yang 0002
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
4since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 2 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
4 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 39% Language models and text generation · 22% Efficient and distributed learning · 7% |
Topics — the 12 heaviest of 12, 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 |
1.5 | 2 | 2024 | Instruction Tuning With Loss Over Instructions · NeurIPS 2024 Bayesian Low-rank Adaptation for Large Language Models · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
bayesian neural networks |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | Bayesian Low-rank Adaptation for Large Language Models · ICLR 2024 Deep Kernel Processes · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › gaussian process › hierarchical gaussian process
deep gaussian process |
1.2 | 2 | 2023 | A theory of representation learning gives a deep generalisation of kernel methods · ICML 2023 Deep Kernel Processes · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes
gaussian process |
1.2 | 2 | 2023 | A theory of representation learning gives a deep generalisation of kernel methods · ICML 2023 Deep Kernel Processes · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
calibration |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Bayesian Low-rank Adaptation for Large Language Models · ICLR 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
instruction tuning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Instruction Tuning With Loss Over Instructions · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
overfitting reduction |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Instruction Tuning With Loss Over Instructions · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
parameter-efficient fine-tuning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Bayesian Low-rank Adaptation for Large Language Models · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › neural network theory
infinite-width limit |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | A theory of representation learning gives a deep generalisation of kernel methods · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation analysis
representation learning theory |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | A theory of representation learning gives a deep generalisation of kernel methods · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods › kernel methods › kernel learning
deep kernel process |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Deep Kernel Processes · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
variational inference |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Deep Kernel Processes · ICML 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
low-rank adaptation · 0.8loss function design · 0.8laplace approximation · 0.8instruction modelling · 0.8inducing point methods · 0.7bayesian representation learning limit · 0.7wishart distribution · 0.5inverse wishart process · 0.5doubly stochastic variational inference · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Bayesian Low-rank Adaptation for Large Language ModelsabstractParameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) has emerged as a new paradigm for cost-efficient fine-tuning of large language models (LLMs), with low-rank adaptation (LoRA) being a widely adopted choice. However, fine-tuned LLMs often become overconfident especially when fine-tuned on small datasets. Bayesian methods, with their inherent ability to estimate uncertainty, serve as potent tools to mitigate overconfidence and enhance calibration. In this work, we introduce Laplace-LoRA, a straightforward yet effective Bayesian method, which applies the Laplace approximation to the LoRA parameters and, considerably boosts the calibration of fine-tuned LLMs. Adam X. Yang, Maxime Robeyns, Laurence Aitchison |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2024 | Instruction Tuning With Loss Over InstructionsabstractInstruction tuning plays a crucial role in shaping the outputs of language models (LMs) to desired styles. In this work, we propose a simple yet effective method, Instruction Modelling (IM), which trains LMs by applying a loss function to the instruction and prompt part rather than solely to the output part. Through experiments across 21 diverse benchmarks, we show that, in many scenarios, IM can effectively improve the LM performance on both NLP tasks (*e.g.,* MMLU, TruthfulQA, and HumanEval) and open-ended generation benchmarks (*e.g.,* MT-Bench and AlpacaEval). Remarkably, in the most advantageous case, IM boosts model performance on AlpacaEval 1.0 by over 100%. We identify two key factors influencing the effectiveness of IM: (1) The ratio between instruction length and output length in the training data; and (2) The number of training examples. We observe that IM is especially beneficial when trained on datasets with lengthy instructions paired with brief outputs, or under the Superficial Alignment Hypothesis (SAH) where a small amount of training examples are used for instruction tuning. Further analysis substantiates our hypothesis that our improvement can be attributed to reduced overfitting to instruction tuning datasets. It is worth noting that we are not proposing \ours as a replacement for the current instruction tuning process.
Instead, our work aims to provide practical guidance for instruction tuning LMs, especially in low-resource scenarios.
Our code is available at https://github.com/ZhengxiangShi/InstructionModelling. Zhengxiang Shi, Adam X. Yang, Bin Wu 0025, Laurence Aitchison, Emine Yilmaz, Aldo Lipani |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2023 | A theory of representation learning gives a deep generalisation of kernel methodsabstractThe successes of modern deep machine learning methods are founded on their ability to transform inputs across multiple layers to build good high-level representations. It is therefore critical to understand this process of representation learning. However, standard theoretical approaches (formally NNGPs) involving infinite width limits eliminate representation learning. We therefore develop a new infinite width limit, the Bayesian representation learning limit, that exhibits representation learning mirroring that in finite-width models, yet at the same time, retains some of the simplicity of standard infinite-width limits. In particular, we show that Deep Gaussian processes (DGPs) in the Bayesian representation learning limit have exactly multivariate Gaussian posteriors, and the posterior covariances can be obtained by optimizing an interpretable objective combining a log-likelihood to improve performance with a series of KL-divergences which keep the posteriors close to the prior. We confirm these results experimentally in wide but finite DGPs. Next, we introduce the possibility of using this limit and objective as a flexible, deep generalisation of kernel methods, that we call deep kernel machines (DKMs). Like most naive kernel methods, DKMs scale cubically in the number of datapoints. We therefore use methods from the Gaussian process inducing point literature to develop a sparse DKM that scales linearly in the number of datapoints. Finally, we extend these approaches to NNs (which have non-Gaussian posteriors) in the Appendices. Adam X. Yang, Maxime Robeyns, Edward Milsom, Ben Anson, Nandi Schoots, Laurence Aitchison |
ICML | 1 |
| 2021 | Deep Kernel ProcessesabstractWe define deep kernel processes in which positive definite Gram matrices are progressively transformed by nonlinear kernel functions and by sampling from (inverse) Wishart distributions. Remarkably, we find that deep Gaussian processes (DGPs), Bayesian neural networks (BNNs), infinite BNNs, and infinite BNNs with bottlenecks can all be written as deep kernel processes. For DGPs the equivalence arises because the Gram matrix formed by the inner product of features is Wishart distributed, and as we show, standard isotropic kernels can be written entirely in terms of this Gram matrix — we do not need knowledge of the underlying features. We define a tractable deep kernel process, the deep inverse Wishart process, and give a doubly-stochastic inducing-point variational inference scheme that operates on the Gram matrices, not on the features, as in DGPs. We show that the deep inverse Wishart process gives superior performance to DGPs and infinite BNNs on fully-connected baselines. Laurence Aitchison, Adam X. Yang, Sebastian W. Ober |
ICML | 2 |