Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Omid Saremi
dblp:170/5922
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
0as first author
6since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 6 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
6 papers |
Deep learning architectures and training · 26% Representation and self-supervised learning · 22% Reinforcement learning · 13% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Computational complexity · 100% |
Topics — the 16 heaviest of 17, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
transformer |
1.5 | 2 | 2024 | What Algorithms can Transformers Learn? A Study in Length Generalization · ICLR 2024 When can transformers reason with abstract symbols? · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
computational learning theory |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | How Far Can Transformers Reason? The Globality Barrier and Inductive Scratchpad · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
implicit bias |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | How JEPA Avoids Noisy Features: The Implicit Bias of Deep Linear Self Distillation Networks · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › embedding learning › joint embedding
joint embedding architecture |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | LiDAR: Sensing Linear Probing Performance in Joint Embedding SSL Architectures · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › unsupervised representation learning › self-supervised representation learning › predictive learning
joint-embedding predictive architecture |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | How JEPA Avoids Noisy Features: The Implicit Bias of Deep Linear Self Distillation Networks · NeurIPS 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model reasoning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | How Far Can Transformers Reason? The Globality Barrier and Inductive Scratchpad · NeurIPS 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › compositional generalization
length generalization |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | What Algorithms can Transformers Learn? A Study in Length Generalization · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › policy optimization
policy gradient |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Vanishing Gradients in Reinforcement Finetuning of Language Models · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reinforcement learning for NLP
reinforcement fine-tuning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Vanishing Gradients in Reinforcement Finetuning of Language Models · ICLR 2024 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
relational reasoning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | When can transformers reason with abstract symbols? · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation analysis
representation evaluation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | LiDAR: Sensing Linear Probing Performance in Joint Embedding SSL Architectures · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression › knowledge distillation
self-distillation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | How JEPA Avoids Noisy Features: The Implicit Bias of Deep Linear Self Distillation Networks · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › neural network expressivity
transformer expressivity |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | When can transformers reason with abstract symbols? · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › training dynamics
vanishing gradient |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Vanishing Gradients in Reinforcement Finetuning of Language Models · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › unsupervised representation learning › self-supervised representation learning
masked autoencoder |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | How JEPA Avoids Noisy Features: The Implicit Bias of Deep Linear Self Distillation Networks · NeurIPS 2024 |
Computational complexity
circuit complexity |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | How Far Can Transformers Reason? The Globality Barrier and Inductive Scratchpad · NeurIPS 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
transformer · 2.3scratchpad · 2.3inductive scratchpad · 1.5supervised fine-tuning · 0.8self-supervised learning · 0.8linear discriminant analysis · 0.8gradient descent · 0.8deep linear network analysis · 0.8RASP programming language · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | When can transformers reason with abstract symbols?abstractWe investigate the capabilities of transformer models on relational reasoning tasks. In these tasks, models are trained on a set of strings encoding abstract relations, and are then tested out-of-distribution on data that contains symbols that did not appear in the training dataset. We prove that for any relational reasoning task in a large family of tasks, transformers learn the abstract relations and generalize to the test set when trained by gradient descent on sufficiently large quantities of training data. This is in contrast to classical fully-connected networks, which we prove fail to learn to reason. Our results inspire modifications of the transformer architecture that add only two trainable parameters per head, and that we empirically demonstrate improve data efficiency for learning to reason. Enric Boix-Adserà, Omid Saremi, Emmanuel Abbe, Samy Bengio, Etai Littwin, Joshua M. Susskind |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2024 | Vanishing Gradients in Reinforcement Finetuning of Language ModelsabstractPretrained language models are commonly aligned with human preferences and downstream tasks via reinforcement finetuning (RFT), which refers to maximizing a (possibly learned) reward function using policy gradient algorithms. This work identifies a fundamental optimization obstacle in RFT: we prove that the expected gradient for an input vanishes when its reward standard deviation under the model is small, even if the expected reward is far from optimal. Through experiments on an RFT benchmark and controlled environments, as well as a theoretical analysis, we then demonstrate that vanishing gradients due to small reward standard deviation are prevalent and detrimental, leading to extremely slow reward maximization. Lastly, we explore ways to overcome vanishing gradients in RFT. We find the common practice of an initial supervised finetuning (SFT) phase to be the most promising candidate, which sheds light on its importance in an RFT pipeline. Moreover, we show that a relatively small number of SFT optimization steps on as few as 1% of the input samples can suffice, indicating that the initial SFT phase need not be expensive in terms of compute and data labeling efforts. Overall, our results emphasize that being mindful for inputs whose expected gradient vanishes, as measured by the reward standard deviation, is crucial for successful execution of RFT. Noam Razin, Hattie Zhou, Omid Saremi, Vimal Thilak, Arwen Bradley, Preetum Nakkiran, Joshua M. Susskind, Etai Littwin |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2024 | LiDAR: Sensing Linear Probing Performance in Joint Embedding SSL ArchitecturesabstractJoint embedding (JE) architectures have emerged as a promising avenue for ac-
quiring transferable data representations. A key obstacle to using JE methods,
however, is the inherent challenge of evaluating learned representations without
access to a downstream task, and an annotated dataset. Without efficient and re-
liable evaluation, it is difficult to iterate on architectural and training choices for
JE methods. In this paper, we introduce LiDAR (Linear Discriminant Analysis
Rank), a metric designed to measure the quality of representations within JE archi-
tectures. Our metric addresses several shortcomings of recent approaches based
on feature covariance rank by discriminating between informative and uninforma-
tive features. In essence, LiDAR quantifies the rank of the Linear Discriminant
Analysis (LDA) matrix associated with the surrogate SSL task—a measure that
intuitively captures the information content as it pertains to solving the SSL task.
We empirically demonstrate that LiDAR significantly surpasses naive rank based
approaches in its predictive power of optimal hyperparameters. Our proposed cri-
terion presents a more robust and intuitive means of assessing the quality of rep-
resentations within JE architectures, which we hope facilitates broader adoption
of these powerful techniques in various domains. Vimal Thilak, Chen Huang 0001, Omid Saremi, Laurent Dinh, Hanlin Goh, Preetum Nakkiran, Joshua M. Susskind, Etai Littwin |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2024 | What Algorithms can Transformers Learn? A Study in Length GeneralizationabstractLarge language models exhibit surprising emergent generalization properties, yet also struggle on many simple reasoning tasks such as arithmetic and parity. In this work, we focus on length generalization, and we propose a unifying framework to understand when and how Transformers can be expected to length generalize on a given task. First, we show that there exist algorithmic tasks for which standard
decoder-only Transformers trained from scratch naturally exhibit strong length generalization. For these tasks, we leverage the RASP programming language (Weiss et al., 2021) to show that the correct algorithmic solution which solves the task can be represented by a simple Transformer. We thus propose the RASP-Generalization Conjecture: Transformers tend to learn a length-generalizing solution if there exists a short RASP-L program that works for all input lengths. We present empirical evidence to support the correlation between RASP-simplicity and generalization. We leverage our insights to give new scratchpad formats which yield strong length generalization on traditionally hard tasks (such as parity and addition), and we illustrate how scratchpad can hinder generalization when it increases the complexity of the corresponding RASP-L program. Overall, our work provides a novel perspective on the mechanisms of length generalization and the algorithmic capabilities of Transformers. Hattie Zhou, Arwen Bradley, Etai Littwin, Noam Razin, Omid Saremi, Joshua M. Susskind, Samy Bengio, Preetum Nakkiran |
ICLR | 5 |
| 2024 | How Far Can Transformers Reason? The Globality Barrier and Inductive ScratchpadabstractCan Transformers predict new syllogisms by composing established ones? More generally, what type of targets can be learned by such models from scratch? Recent works show that Transformers can be Turing-complete in terms of expressivity, but this does not address the learnability objective. This paper puts forward the notion of 'globality degree' of a target distribution to capture when weak learning is efficiently achievable by regular Transformers. This measure shows a contrast with the expressivity results of Transformers captured by $TC^0/TC^1$ classes (further studied here), since the globality relates to correlations with the more limited $NC^0$ class. We show here experimentally and theoretically under additional assumptions that distributions with high globality cannot be learned efficiently. In particular, syllogisms cannot be composed on long chains. Further, we develop scratchpad techniques and show that: (i) agnostic scratchpads cannot break the globality barrier, (ii) educated scratchpads can break the globality with intermediate steps, although not all such scratchpads can generalize out-of-distribution (OOD), (iii) a notion of 'inductive scratchpad', that composes the prior information more efficiently, can both break the globality barrier and improve the OOD generalization. In particular, some of our inductive scratchpads can achieve length generalizations of up to $6\times$ for some arithmetic tasks depending on the input formatting. Emmanuel Abbe, Samy Bengio, Aryo Lotfi, Colin Sandon, Omid Saremi |
NeurIPS | 5 |
| 2024 | How JEPA Avoids Noisy Features: The Implicit Bias of Deep Linear Self Distillation NetworksabstractTwo competing paradigms exist for self-supervised learning of data representations.
Joint Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPAs) is a class of architectures in which semantically similar inputs are encoded into representations that are predictive of each other. A recent successful approach that falls under the JEPA framework is self-distillation, where an online encoder is trained to predict the output of the target encoder, sometimes with a lightweight predictor network. This is contrasted with the Masked Auto Encoder (MAE) paradigm, where an encoder and decoder are trained to reconstruct missing parts of the input in ambient space rather than its latent representation. A common motivation for using the JEPA approach over MAE is that the JEPA objective prioritizes abstract features over fine-grained pixel information (which can be unpredictable and uninformative).
In this work, we seek to understand the mechanism behind this empirical observation by analyzing deep linear models. We uncover a surprising mechanism: in a simplified linear setting where both approaches learn similar representations, JEPAs are biased to learn high influence features, or features characterized by having high regression coefficients. Our results point to a distinct implicit bias of predicting in latent space that may shed light on its success in practice. Etai Littwin, Omid Saremi, Madhu Advani, Vimal Thilak, Preetum Nakkiran, Chen Huang 0001, Joshua M. Susskind |
NeurIPS | 2 |