Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Tom Sander
dblp:175/2937
· DBLP profile ↗
9ranked-venue papers
9as first author
7since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0001-9749-8199ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 6 first-author · 6 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 3 · 3 first-author · 1 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
5 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 37% Language models and text generation · 32% Segmentation and scene understanding · 11% | |
| Network and information security
3 papers |
Security and privacy of machine learning · 55% Digital forensics and information hiding · 45% |
Topics — the 20 heaviest of 21, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
privacy |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | Differentially Private Representation Learning via Image Captioning · ICML 2024 TAN Without a Burn: Scaling Laws of DP-SGD · ICML 2023 |
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding
image segmentation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Watermark Anything With Localized Messages · ICLR 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
instruction tuning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking the Role of Verbatim Memorization in LLM Privacy · NeurIPS 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
knowledge manipulation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking the Role of Verbatim Memorization in LLM Privacy · NeurIPS 2025 |
Digital forensics and information hiding › watermarking
image watermarking |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Watermark Anything With Localized Messages · ICLR 2025 |
Security and privacy of machine learning › model privacy
memorization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking the Role of Verbatim Memorization in LLM Privacy · NeurIPS 2025 |
Security and privacy of machine learning › privacy attack
personally identifiable information extraction |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking the Role of Verbatim Memorization in LLM Privacy · NeurIPS 2025 |
Security and privacy of machine learning › privacy attack
training data extraction |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Rethinking the Role of Verbatim Memorization in LLM Privacy · NeurIPS 2025 |
Digital forensics and information hiding
watermarking |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Watermark Anything With Localized Messages · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
synthetic data detection |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Watermarking Makes Language Models Radioactive · NeurIPS 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
watermarking |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Watermarking Makes Language Models Radioactive · NeurIPS 2024 |
Security and privacy of machine learning
membership inference |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Watermarking Makes Language Models Radioactive · NeurIPS 2024 |
Digital forensics and information hiding › watermarking
watermark detection |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Watermarking Makes Language Models Radioactive · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › stochastic gradient descent
differentially private SGD |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | TAN Without a Burn: Scaling Laws of DP-SGD · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › privacy
differentially private training |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | TAN Without a Burn: Scaling Laws of DP-SGD · ICML 2023 |
Digital forensics and information hiding
steganography |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Watermark Anything With Localized Messages · ICLR 2025 |
Computer vision › Vision and language
image captioning |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Differentially Private Representation Learning via Image Captioning · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning
visual representation learning |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Differentially Private Representation Learning via Image Captioning · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
hyperparameter optimization |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | TAN Without a Burn: Scaling Laws of DP-SGD · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
scaling laws |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | TAN Without a Burn: Scaling Laws of DP-SGD · ICML 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
joint training · 1.7fine-tuning · 1.7extraction attack · 1.7deep learning · 1.7statistical hypothesis testing · 1.5image captioning · 0.8differential privacy · 0.8renyi differential privacy · 0.7DP-SGD · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Watermark Anything With Localized MessagesabstractImage watermarking methods are not tailored to handle small watermarked areas.
This restricts applications in real-world scenarios where parts of the image may come from different sources or have been edited.
We introduce a deep-learning model for localized image watermarking, dubbed the Watermark Anything Model (WAM).
The WAM embedder imperceptibly modifies the input image, while the extractor segments the received image into watermarked and non-watermarked areas and recovers one or several hidden messages from the areas found to be watermarked.
The models are jointly trained at low resolution and without perceptual constraints, then post-trained for imperceptibility and multiple watermarks.
Experiments show that WAM is competitive with state-of-the art methods in terms of imperceptibility and robustness, especially against inpainting and splicing, even on high-resolution images.
Moreover, it offers new capabilities: WAM can locate watermarked areas in spliced images and extract distinct 32-bit messages with less than 1 bit error from multiple small regions -- no larger than 10\% of the image surface -- even for small $256\times 256$ images.
Training and inference code and model weights are available at https://github.com/facebookresearch/watermark-anything. Tom Sander, Pierre Fernandez, Alain Durmus, Teddy Furon, Matthijs Douze |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2025 | Rethinking the Role of Verbatim Memorization in LLM PrivacyabstractConventional wisdom in machine learning privacy research states that memorization
directly implies a loss of privacy. In contrast, a well-generalized model only remembers distributional patterns and preserves privacy of its training data. In this work, we show that this relationship is much more complex for LLMs trained for chat,
and depends heavily on how knowledge is encoded and manipulated. To this end, we fine-tune language models on synthetically generated biographical information including PIIs, and try to extract them in different ways after instruction fine-tuning. We find counter to conventional wisdom that better verbatim memorization does not necessarily increase data leakage via chat. We also find that it is easier to extract information via chat from an LLM that is better able to manipulate and process knowledge even if it is smaller, and that not all attributes are equally extractable. This suggests that the relationship between privacy, memorization and language understanding of LLMs is very intricate, and that examining memorization in isolation can lead to misleading conclusions. Tom Sander, Bargav Jayaraman, Mark Ibrahim, Kamalika Chaudhuri, Chuan Guo 0001 |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2024 | Implicit Bias in Noisy-SGD: With Applications to Differentially Private TrainingabstractTraining Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) with small batches using Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) often results in superior test performance compared to larger batches. This implicit bias is attributed to the specific noise structure inherent to SGD. When ensuring Differential Privacy (DP) in DNNs’ training, DP-SGD adds Gaussian noise to the clipped gradients. However, large-batch training still leads to a significant performance decrease, posing a challenge as strong DP guarantees necessitate the use of massive batches. Our study first demonstrates that this phenomenon extends to Noisy-SGD (DP-SGD without clipping), suggesting that the stochasticity, not the clipping, is responsible for this implicit bias, even with additional isotropic Gaussian noise. We then theoretically analyze the solutions obtained with continuous versions of Noisy-SGD for the Linear Least Square and Diagonal Linear Network settings. Our analysis reveals that the additional noise indeed amplifies the implicit bias. It suggests that the performance issues of private training stem from the same underlying principles as SGD, offering hope for improvements in large batch training strategies. Tom Sander, Maxime Sylvestre, Alain Durmus |
AISTATS | 1 |
| 2024 | Differentially Private Representation Learning via Image CaptioningabstractDifferentially private (DP) machine learning is considered the gold-standard solution for training a model from sensitive data while still preserving privacy. However, a major barrier to achieving this ideal is its sub-optimal privacy-accuracy trade-off, which is particularly visible in DP representation learning. Specifically, it has been shown that under modest privacy budgets, most models learn representations that are not significantly better than hand-crafted features. In this work, we show that effective DP representation learning can be done via image captioning and scaling up to internet-scale multimodal datasets. Through a series of engineering tricks, we successfully train a DP image captioner (DP-Cap) on a 233M subset of LAION-2B from scratch using a reasonable amount of computation, and obtaining unprecedented high-quality image features that can be used in a variety of downstream vision and vision-language tasks. For example, under a privacy budget of $\varepsilon=8$ for the LAION dataset, a linear classifier trained on top of learned DP-Cap features attains $65.8\%$ accuracy on ImageNet-1K, considerably improving the previous SOTA of $56.5\%$. Our work challenges the prevailing sentiment that high-utility DP representation learning cannot be achieved by training from scratch. Tom Sander, Yaodong Yu, Maziar Sanjabi, Alain Durmus, Yi Ma 0001, Kamalika Chaudhuri, Chuan Guo 0001 |
ICML | 1 |
| 2024 | Watermarking Makes Language Models RadioactiveabstractWe investigate the radioactivity of text generated by large language models (LLM), \ie whether it is possible to detect that such synthetic input was used to train a subsequent LLM.
Current methods like membership inference or active IP protection either work only in settings where the suspected text is known or do not provide reliable statistical guarantees.
We discover that, on the contrary, it is possible to reliably determine if a language model was trained on synthetic data if that data is output by a watermarked LLM.
Our new methods, specialized for radioactivity, detects with a provable confidence weak residuals of the watermark signal in the fine-tuned LLM.
We link the radioactivity contamination level to the following properties: the watermark robustness, its proportion in the training set, and the fine-tuning process.
For instance, if the suspect model is open-weight, we demonstrate that training on watermarked instructions can be detected with high confidence ($p$-value $< 10^{-5}$) even when as little as $5\%$ of training text is watermarked. Tom Sander, Pierre Fernandez, Alain Durmus, Matthijs Douze, Teddy Furon |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2023 | TAN Without a Burn: Scaling Laws of DP-SGDabstractDifferentially Private methods for training Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) have progressed recently, in particular with the use of massive batches and aggregated data augmentations for a large number of training steps. These techniques require much more computing resources than their non-private counterparts, shifting the traditional privacy-accuracy trade-off to a privacy-accuracy-compute trade-off and making hyper-parameter search virtually impossible for realistic scenarios. In this work, we decouple privacy analysis and experimental behavior of noisy training to explore the trade-off with minimal computational requirements. We first use the tools of Renyi Differential Privacy (RDP) to highlight that the privacy budget, when not overcharged, only depends on the total amount of noise (TAN) injected throughout training. We then derive scaling laws for training models with DP-SGD to optimize hyper-parameters with more than a $100\times$ reduction in computational budget. We apply the proposed method on CIFAR-10 and ImageNet and, in particular, strongly improve the state-of-the-art on ImageNet with a $+9$ points gain in top-1 accuracy for a privacy budget $\varepsilon=8$. Tom Sander, Pierre Stock, Alexandre Sablayrolles |
ICML | 1 |
| 2021 | Reasons of Individuals to Trust What They Read on Social Network Sites
Tom Sander, Phoey Lee Teh |
WorldCIST (2) | 1 |
| 2019 | My Employer's Prestige, My Prestige
Tom Sander, Phoey Lee Teh |
WorldCIST (1) | 1 |
| 2015 | Use of Social Network Site's Profile for the Employment Seeking Process
Tom Sander, Phoey Lee Teh, Biruta Sloka |
WorldCIST (1) | 1 |