VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Weronika Ormaniec
dblp:322/8772
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 2 first-author · 3 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 |
Deep learning architectures and training · 36% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 33% Optimization for machine learning · 21% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Data integration and cleaning · 100% |
Topics — the 11 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › causal inference
causal discovery |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Standardizing Structural Causal Models · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
causal inference |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Standardizing Structural Causal Models · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
hessian analysis |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | What Does It Mean to Be a Transformer? Insights from a Theoretical Hessian Analysis · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
loss landscape |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | What Does It Mean to Be a Transformer? Insights from a Theoretical Hessian Analysis · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › causal inference › causal model
structural causal model |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Standardizing Structural Causal Models · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
transformer |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | What Does It Mean to Be a Transformer? Insights from a Theoretical Hessian Analysis · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › transformer
transformer optimization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | What Does It Mean to Be a Transformer? Insights from a Theoretical Hessian Analysis · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › model-based optimization
bayesian optimization |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Transition Constrained Bayesian Optimization via Markov Decision Processes · NeurIPS 2024 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning
constraint-based planning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Transition Constrained Bayesian Optimization via Markov Decision Processes · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › attention mechanism
self-attention |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | What Does It Mean to Be a Transformer? Insights from a Theoretical Hessian Analysis · ICLR 2025 |
Data integration and cleaning › data generation
synthetic data generation |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Standardizing Structural Causal Models · ICLR 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
standardization · 1.7identifiability analysis · 1.7matrix calculus · 0.9hessian analysis · 0.9reinforcement learning · 0.8markov decision process · 0.8linearization · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | What Does It Mean to Be a Transformer? Insights from a Theoretical Hessian AnalysisabstractThe Transformer architecture has inarguably revolutionized deep learning, overtaking classical architectures like multi-layer perceptions (MLPs) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs). At its core, the attention block differs in form and functionality from most other architectural components in deep learning—to the extent that, in comparison to MLPs/CNNs, Transformers are more often accompanied by adaptive optimizers, layer normalization, learning rate warmup, etc. The root causes behind these outward manifestations and the precise mechanisms that govern them remain poorly understood. In this work, we bridge this gap by providing a fundamental understanding of what distinguishes the Transformer from the other architectures—grounded in a theoretical comparison of the (loss) Hessian. Concretely, for a single self-attention layer, (a) we first entirely derive the Transformer’s Hessian and express it in matrix derivatives; (b) we then characterize it in terms of data, weight, and attention moment dependencies; and (c) while doing so further highlight the important structural differences to the Hessian of classical networks. Our results suggest that various common architectural and optimization choices in Transformers can be traced back to their highly non-linear dependencies on the data and weight matrices, which vary heterogeneously across parameters. Ultimately, our findings provide a deeper understanding of the Transformer’s unique optimization landscape and the challenges it poses. Weronika Ormaniec, Felix Dangel, Sidak Pal Singh |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2025 | Standardizing Structural Causal ModelsabstractSynthetic datasets generated by structural causal models (SCMs) are commonly used for benchmarking causal structure learning algorithms. However, the variances and pairwise correlations in SCM data tend to increase along the causal ordering. Several popular algorithms exploit these artifacts, possibly leading to conclusions that do not generalize to real-world settings. Existing metrics like $\operatorname{Var}$-sortability and $\operatorname{R^2}$-sortability quantify these patterns, but they do not provide tools to remedy them. To address this, we propose internally-standardized structural causal models (iSCMs), a modification of SCMs that introduces a standardization operation at each variable during the generative process. By construction, iSCMs are not $\operatorname{Var}$-sortable. We also find empirical evidence that they are mostly not $\operatorname{R^2}$-sortable for commonly-used graph families. Moreover, contrary to the post-hoc standardization of data generated by standard SCMs, we prove that linear iSCMs are less identifiable from prior knowledge on the weights and do not collapse to deterministic relationships in large systems, which may make iSCMs a useful model in causal inference beyond the benchmarking problem studied here. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/werkaaa/iscm. Weronika Ormaniec, Scott Sussex, Lars Lorch, Bernhard Schölkopf, Andreas Krause 0001 |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2024 | Transition Constrained Bayesian Optimization via Markov Decision ProcessesabstractBayesian optimization is a methodology to optimize black-box functions. Traditionally, it focuses on the setting where you can arbitrarily query the search space. However, many real-life problems do not offer this flexibility; in particular, the search space of the next query may depend on previous ones. Example challenges arise in the physical sciences in the form of local movement constraints, required monotonicity in certain variables, and transitions influencing the accuracy of measurements. Altogether, such *transition constraints* necessitate a form of planning. This work extends classical Bayesian optimization via the framework of Markov Decision Processes. We iteratively solve a tractable linearization of our utility function using reinforcement learning to obtain a policy that plans ahead for the entire horizon. This is a parallel to the optimization of an *acquisition function in policy space*. The resulting policy is potentially history-dependent and non-Markovian. We showcase applications in chemical reactor optimization, informative path planning, machine calibration, and other synthetic examples. Jose Pablo Folch, Calvin Tsay, Robert M. Lee, Behrang Shafei, Weronika Ormaniec, Andreas Krause 0001, Mark van der Wilk, Ruth Misener, Mojmír Mutný |
NeurIPS | 5 |