Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Alexander A. Alemi
dblp:160/8158 · also Alex Alemi, Alexander Amir Alemi
· DBLP profile ↗
15ranked-venue papers
3as first author
7since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0001-7147-9184ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 15 · 3 first-author · 7 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1
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
13 papers |
Deep learning architectures and training · 25% Learning theory · 12% Representation and self-supervised learning · 11% | |
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Automated reasoning and model checking · 69% Information theory · 16% Mathematical optimization · 16% |
Topics — the 30 heaviest of 37, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › adaptive optimization
adam |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Scaling Exponents Across Parameterizations and Optimizers · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
hyperparameter transfer |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Scaling Exponents Across Parameterizations and Optimizers · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › neural network theory › neural network parameterization
maximal update parameterization |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Scaling Exponents Across Parameterizations and Optimizers · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
scaling laws |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Scaling Exponents Across Parameterizations and Optimizers · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › training dynamics
training instability |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Small-scale proxies for large-scale Transformer training instabilities · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › transformer
transformer training |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Small-scale proxies for large-scale Transformer training instabilities · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference › variational objective
evidence lower bound |
0.7 | 2 | 2019 | On Variational Bounds of Mutual Information · ICML 2019 Fixing a Broken ELBO · ICML 2018 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › mutual information
mutual information estimation |
0.7 | 2 | 2019 | On Variational Bounds of Mutual Information · ICML 2019 GILBO: One Metric to Measure Them All · NeurIPS 2018 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models
latent variable model |
0.7 | 2 | 2018 | GILBO: One Metric to Measure Them All · NeurIPS 2018 Fixing a Broken ELBO · ICML 2018 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
imitation learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Bayesian Imitation Learning for End-to-End Mobile Manipulation · ICML 2022 |
Robotics › Robot manipulation
mobile manipulation |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Bayesian Imitation Learning for End-to-End Mobile Manipulation · ICML 2022 |
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping
sensor fusion |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Bayesian Imitation Learning for End-to-End Mobile Manipulation · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
sim-to-real transfer |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Bayesian Imitation Learning for End-to-End Mobile Manipulation · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Does Knowledge Distillation Really Work? · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression
knowledge distillation |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Does Knowledge Distillation Really Work? · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › neural network theory › neural network kernels
neural tangent kernel |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Neural Tangents: Fast and Easy Infinite Neural Networks in Python · ICLR 2020 |
Programming languages and type systems
library design |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Neural Tangents: Fast and Easy Infinite Neural Networks in Python · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
generative model evaluation |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | GILBO: One Metric to Measure Them All · NeurIPS 2018 |
Machine learning › Graph learning › graph neural network
graph attention |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Watch Your Step: Learning Node Embeddings via Graph Attention · NeurIPS 2018 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
information-theoretic representation learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Fixing a Broken ELBO · ICML 2018 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
network embedding |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Watch Your Step: Learning Node Embeddings via Graph Attention · NeurIPS 2018 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
rate-distortion tradeoff |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Fixing a Broken ELBO · ICML 2018 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › convolutional neural network
convolutional neural network architecture |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Inception-v4, Inception-ResNet and the Impact of Residual Connections on Learning · AAAI 2017 |
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
image classification |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Inception-v4, Inception-ResNet and the Impact of Residual Connections on Learning · AAAI 2017 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
information bottleneck |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Deep Variational Information Bottleneck · ICLR (Poster) 2017 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › skip connections
residual connection |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Inception-v4, Inception-ResNet and the Impact of Residual Connections on Learning · AAAI 2017 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › information bottleneck
variational information bottleneck |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Deep Variational Information Bottleneck · ICLR (Poster) 2017 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
automated theorem proving |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | DeepMath - Deep Sequence Models for Premise Selection · NIPS 2016 |
Automated reasoning and model checking › automated theorem proving
premise selection |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | DeepMath - Deep Sequence Models for Premise Selection · NIPS 2016 |
Mathematical optimization › statistical estimation
bias-variance trade-off |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | On Variational Bounds of Mutual Information · ICML 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
variational inference · 0.9neural tangent kernel · 0.9weight decay · 0.8warm-up · 0.8muparam · 0.8weighted ensemble · 0.7variational information bottleneck · 0.6convolutional neural network · 0.6bayesian modeling · 0.6optimization analysis · 0.5variational bounds · 0.4neural network parameterization · 0.4neural sequence model · 0.2deep learning · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Small-scale proxies for large-scale Transformer training instabilitiesabstractTeams that have trained large Transformer-based models have reported training instabilities at large scale that did not appear when training with the same hyperparameters at smaller scales. Although the causes of such instabilities are of scientific interest, the amount of resources required to reproduce them has made investigation difficult. In this work, we seek ways to reproduce and study training instability at smaller scales. First, we focus on two sources of training instability described in previous work: the growth of logits in attention layers (Dehghani et al., 2023) and divergence of the output logits from the log probabilities (Chowdhery et al., 2022). By measuring the relationship between learning rate and loss across scales, we show that these instabilities also appear in small models when training at high learning rates, and that mitigations previously employed at large scales are equally effective in this regime. This prompts us to investigate the extent to which other known optimizer and model interventions influence the sensitivity of the final loss to changes in the learning rate. To this end, we study methods such as warm-up, weight decay, and the MuParam (Yang et al., 2022), and combine techniques to train small models that achieve similar losses across orders of magnitude of learning rate variation. Finally, to conclude our exploration we study two cases where instabilities can be predicted before they emerge by examining the scaling behavior of model characteristics such as activation and gradient norms. Mitchell Wortsman, Peter J. Liu, Lechao Xiao, Katie Everett, Alexander A. Alemi, Ben Adlam, John D. Co-Reyes, Izzeddin Gur, Roman Novak, Jeffrey Pennington, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Kelvin Xu, Jaehoon Lee 0001, Justin Gilmer, Simon Kornblith |
ICLR | 5 |
| 2024 | Scaling Exponents Across Parameterizations and OptimizersabstractRobust and effective scaling of models from small to large width typically requires the precise adjustment of many algorithmic and architectural details, such as parameterization and optimizer choices. In this work, we propose a new perspective on parameterization by investigating a key assumption in prior work about the alignment between parameters and data and derive new theoretical results under weaker assumptions and a broader set of optimizers. Our extensive empirical investigation includes *tens of thousands* of models trained with *all combinations of* three optimizers, four parameterizations, several alignment assumptions, more than a dozen learning rates, and fourteen model sizes up to 27B parameters. We find that the best learning rate scaling prescription would often have been excluded by the assumptions in prior work. Our results show that all parameterizations, not just maximal update parameterization (muP), can achieve hyperparameter transfer; moreover, our novel per-layer learning rate prescription for standard parameterization outperforms muP. Finally, we demonstrate that an overlooked aspect of parameterization, the epsilon parameter in Adam, must be scaled correctly to avoid gradient underflow and propose *Adam-atan2*, a new numerically stable, scale-invariant version of Adam that eliminates the epsilon hyperparameter entirely. Katie Everett, Lechao Xiao, Mitchell Wortsman, Alexander A. Alemi, Roman Novak, Peter J. Liu, Izzeddin Gur, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Jaehoon Lee 0001, Jeffrey Pennington |
ICML | 4 |
| 2023 | Weighted Ensemble Self-Supervised Learning
Yangjun Ruan, Warren R. Morningstar, Alexander A. Alemi, Sergey Ioffe, Ian Fischer, Joshua V. Dillon |
ICLR | 4 |
| 2022 | PACm-Bayes: Narrowing the Empirical Risk Gap in the Misspecified Bayesian RegimeabstractThe Bayesian posterior minimizes the "inferential risk" which itself bounds the "predictive risk." This bound is tight when the likelihood and prior are well-specified. How-ever since misspecification induces a gap,the Bayesian posterior predictive distribution may have poor generalization performance. This work develops a multi-sample loss (PAC$^m$) which can close the gap by spanning a trade-off between the two risks. The loss is computationally favorable and offers PAC generalization guarantees. Empirical study demonstrates improvement to the predictive distribution Warren R. Morningstar, Alexander A. Alemi, Joshua V. Dillon |
AISTATS | 2 |
| 2022 | Bayesian Imitation Learning for End-to-End Mobile ManipulationabstractIn this work we investigate and demonstrate benefits of a Bayesian approach to imitation learning from multiple sensor inputs, as applied to the task of opening office doors with a mobile manipulator. Augmenting policies with additional sensor inputs{—}such as RGB + depth cameras{—}is a straightforward approach to improving robot perception capabilities, especially for tasks that may favor different sensors in different situations. As we scale multi-sensor robotic learning to unstructured real-world settings (e.g. offices, homes) and more complex robot behaviors, we also increase reliance on simulators for cost, efficiency, and safety. Consequently, the sim-to-real gap across multiple sensor modalities also increases, making simulated validation more difficult. We show that using the Variational Information Bottleneck (Alemi et al., 2016) to regularize convolutional neural networks improves generalization to heldout domains and reduces the sim-to-real gap in a sensor-agnostic manner. As a side effect, the learned embeddings also provide useful estimates of model uncertainty for each sensor. We demonstrate that our method is able to help close the sim-to-real gap and successfully fuse RGB and depth modalities based on understanding of the situational uncertainty of each sensor. In a real-world office environment, we achieve 96% task success, improving upon the baseline by +16%. Daniel Ho, Alexander A. Alemi, Eric Jang, Mohi Khansari |
ICML | 3 |
| 2021 | Density of States Estimation for Out of Distribution DetectionabstractPerhaps surprisingly, recent studies have shown probabilistic model likelihoods have poor specificity for out-of-distribution (OOD) detection and often assign higher likelihoods to OOD data than in-distribution data. To ameliorate this issue we propose DoSE, the density of states estimator. Drawing on the statistical physics notion of “density of states,” the DoSE decision rule avoids direct comparison of model probabilities, and instead utilizes the “probability of the model probability,” or indeed the frequency of any reasonable statistic. The frequency is calculated using nonparametric density estimators (e.g., KDE and one-class SVM) which measure the typicality of various model statistics given the training data and from which we can flag test points with low typicality as anomalous. Unlike many other methods, DoSE requires neither labeled data nor OOD examples. DoSE is modular and can be trivially applied to any existing, trained model. We demonstrate DoSE’s state-of-the-art performance against other unsupervised OOD detectors on previously established “hard” benchmarks. Warren R. Morningstar, Cusuh Ham, Andrew G. Gallagher, Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Alexander A. Alemi, Joshua V. Dillon |
AISTATS | 5 |
| 2021 | Does Knowledge Distillation Really Work?abstractKnowledge distillation is a popular technique for training a small student network to emulate a larger teacher model, such as an ensemble of networks. We show that while knowledge distillation can improve student generalization, it does not typically work as it is commonly understood: there often remains a surprisingly large discrepancy between the predictive distributions of the teacher and the student, even in cases when the student has the capacity to perfectly match the teacher. We identify difficulties in optimization as a key reason for why the student is unable to match the teacher. We also show how the details of the dataset used for distillation play a role in how closely the student matches the teacher --- and that more closely matching the teacher paradoxically does not always lead to better student generalization. Samuel Stanton, Pavel Izmailov, Polina Kirichenko, Alexander A. Alemi, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
NeurIPS | 4 |
| 2020 | Neural Tangents: Fast and Easy Infinite Neural Networks in Python
Roman Novak, Lechao Xiao, Jiri Hron, Jaehoon Lee 0001, Alexander A. Alemi, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Samuel S. Schoenholz |
ICLR | 5 |
| 2019 | On Variational Bounds of Mutual InformationabstractEstimating and optimizing Mutual Information (MI) is core to many problems in machine learning, but bounding MI in high dimensions is challenging. To establish tractable and scalable objectives, recent work has turned to variational bounds parameterized by neural networks. However, the relationships and tradeoffs between these bounds remains unclear. In this work, we unify these recent developments in a single framework. We find that the existing variational lower bounds degrade when the MI is large, exhibiting either high bias or high variance. To address this problem, we introduce a continuum of lower bounds that encompasses previous bounds and flexibly trades off bias and variance. On high-dimensional, controlled problems, we empirically characterize the bias and variance of the bounds and their gradients and demonstrate the effectiveness of these new bounds for estimation and representation learning. Ben Poole, Sherjil Ozair, Aäron van den Oord, Alexander A. Alemi, George Tucker |
ICML | 4 |
| 2018 | Fixing a Broken ELBOabstractRecent work in unsupervised representation learning has focused on learning deep directed latentvariable models. Fitting these models by maximizing the marginal likelihood or evidence is typically intractable, thus a common approximation is to maximize the evidence lower bound (ELBO) instead. However, maximum likelihood training (whether exact or approximate) does not necessarily result in a good latent representation, as we demonstrate both theoretically and empirically. In particular, we derive variational lower and upper bounds on the mutual information between the input and the latent variable, and use these bounds to derive a rate-distortion curve that characterizes the tradeoff between compression and reconstruction accuracy. Using this framework, we demonstrate that there is a family of models with identical ELBO, but different quantitative and qualitative characteristics. Our framework also suggests a simple new method to ensure that latent variable models with powerful stochastic decoders do not ignore their latent code. Alexander A. Alemi, Ben Poole, Ian Fischer, Joshua V. Dillon, Rif A. Saurous, Kevin Murphy 0002 |
ICML | 1 |
| 2018 | Watch Your Step: Learning Node Embeddings via Graph AttentionabstractGraph embedding methods represent nodes in a continuous vector space, preserving different types of relational information from the graph. There are many hyper-parameters to these methods (e.g. the length of a random walk) which have to be manually tuned for every graph. In this paper, we replace previously fixed hyper-parameters with trainable ones that we automatically learn via backpropagation. In particular, we propose a novel attention model on the power series of the transition matrix, which guides the random walk to optimize an upstream objective. Unlike previous approaches to attention models, the method that we propose utilizes attention parameters exclusively on the data itself (e.g. on the random walk), and are not used by the model for inference. We experiment on link prediction tasks, as we aim to produce embeddings that best-preserve the graph structure, generalizing to unseen information. We improve state-of-the-art results on a comprehensive suite of real-world graph datasets including social, collaboration, and biological networks, where we observe that our graph attention model can reduce the error by up to 20\%-40\%. We show that our automatically-learned attention parameters can vary significantly per graph, and correspond to the optimal choice of hyper-parameter if we manually tune existing methods. Sami Abu-El-Haija, Bryan Perozzi, Rami Al-Rfou, Alexander A. Alemi |
NeurIPS | 4 |
| 2018 | GILBO: One Metric to Measure Them AllabstractWe propose a simple, tractable lower bound on the mutual information contained in the joint generative density of any latent variable generative model: the GILBO (Generative Information Lower BOund). It offers a data-independent measure of the complexity of the learned latent variable description, giving the log of the effective description length. It is well-defined for both VAEs and GANs. We compute the GILBO for 800 GANs and VAEs each trained on four datasets (MNIST, FashionMNIST, CIFAR-10 and CelebA) and discuss the results. Alexander A. Alemi, Ian Fischer |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2017 | Inception-v4, Inception-ResNet and the Impact of Residual Connections on LearningabstractVery deep convolutional networks have been central to the largest advances in image recognition performance in recent years. One example is the Inception architecture that has been shown to achieve very good performance at relatively low computational cost. Recently, the introduction of residual connections in conjunction with a more traditional architecture has yielded state-of-the-art performance in the 2015 ILSVRC challenge; its performance was similar to the latest generation Inception-v3 network. This raises the question: Are there any benefits to combining Inception architectures with residual connections? Here we give clear empirical evidence that training with residual connections accelerates the training of Inception networks significantly. There is also some evidence of residual Inception networks outperforming similarly expensive Inception networks without residual connections by a thin margin. We also present several new streamlined architectures for both residual and non-residual Inception networks. These variations improve the single-frame recognition performance on the ILSVRC 2012 classification task significantly. We further demonstrate how proper activation scaling stabilizes the training of very wide residual Inception networks. With an ensemble of three residual and one Inception-v4 networks, we achieve 3.08% top-5 error on the test set of the ImageNet classification (CLS) challenge. Christian Szegedy, Sergey Ioffe, Vincent Vanhoucke, Alexander A. Alemi |
AAAI | 4 |
| 2017 | Deep Variational Information Bottleneck
Alexander A. Alemi, Ian Fischer, Joshua V. Dillon, Kevin Murphy 0002 |
ICLR (Poster) | 1 |
| 2016 | DeepMath - Deep Sequence Models for Premise SelectionabstractWe study the effectiveness of neural sequence models for premise selection in automated theorem proving, a key bottleneck for progress in formalized mathematics. We propose a two stage approach for this task that yields good results for the premise selection task on the Mizar corpus while avoiding the hand-engineered features of existing state-of-the-art models. To our knowledge, this is the first time deep learning has been applied theorem proving on a large scale. Geoffrey Irving, Christian Szegedy, Alexander A. Alemi, Niklas Eén, François Chollet, Josef Urban |
NIPS | 3 |