Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Aleksandra Piktus
dblp:241/7090
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
0as first author
5since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 5 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 |
Language models and text generation · 53% Deep learning architectures and training · 13% Reinforcement learning · 13% |
Topics — the 13 heaviest of 14, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
sample efficiency |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
scaling laws |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model training › language model pretraining
large language model pretraining |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | FinGPT: Large Generative Models for a Small Language · EMNLP 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › low-resource language processing
low-resource language models |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | FinGPT: Large Generative Models for a Small Language · EMNLP 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model training
scaling laws for language models |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models · NeurIPS 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
fact-checking |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Generating Fact Checking Briefs · EMNLP (1) 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems
open-domain question answering |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks · NeurIPS 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
retrieval-augmented generation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks · NeurIPS 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
multilingual language models |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | FinGPT: Large Generative Models for a Small Language · EMNLP 2023 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › data curation
training data curation |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models · NeurIPS 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › information retrieval
dense retrieval |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks · NeurIPS 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
information retrieval |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks · NeurIPS 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
text generation |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Generating Fact Checking Briefs · EMNLP (1) 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
scaling law fitting · 1.5language model pretraining · 0.7instruction tuning · 0.7data augmentation · 0.7sequence-to-sequence generation · 0.4fine-tuning · 0.4dense retrieval · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Scaling Data-Constrained Language ModelsabstractThe current trend of scaling language models involves increasing both parameter count and training data set size. Extrapolating this trend suggests that training data set size may soon be limited by the amount of text data available on the internet. Motivated by this limit, we investigate scaling language models in data-constrained regimes. Specifically, we run a large set of experiments varying the extent of data repetition and compute budget, ranging up to 900 billion training tokens and 9 billion parameter models. We find that with constrained data for a fixed compute budget, training with up to 4 epochs of repeated data yields negligible changes to loss compared to having unique data. However, with more repetition, the value of adding compute eventually decays to zero. We propose and empirically validate a scaling law for compute optimality that accounts for the decreasing value of repeated tokens and excess parameters. Finally, we experiment with approaches mitigating data scarcity, including augmenting the training data set with code data or removing commonly used filters. Models and data sets from our 400 training runs are freely available at https://github.com/huggingface/datablations. Niklas Muennighoff, Alexander M. Rush, Boaz Barak, Teven Le Scao, Aleksandra Piktus, Nouamane Tazi, Sampo Pyysalo, Thomas Wolf 0008, Colin Raffel |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 5 |
| 2023 | FinGPT: Large Generative Models for a Small LanguageabstractRisto Luukkonen, Ville Komulainen, Jouni Luoma, Anni Eskelinen, Jenna Kanerva, Hanna-Mari Kupari, Filip Ginter, Veronika Laippala, Niklas Muennighoff, Aleksandra Piktus, Thomas Wang, Nouamane Tazi, Teven Scao, Thomas Wolf, Osma Suominen, Samuli Sairanen, Mikko Merioksa, Jyrki Heinonen, Aija Vahtola, Samuel Antao, Sampo Pyysalo. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2023. Risto Luukkonen, Ville Komulainen, Jouni Luoma, Anni Eskelinen, Jenna Kanerva, Hanna-Mari Kupari, Filip Ginter, Veronika Laippala, Niklas Muennighoff, Aleksandra Piktus, Thomas Wang, Nouamane Tazi, Teven Le Scao, Thomas Wolf 0008, Osma Suominen, Samuli Sairanen, Mikko Merioksa, Jyrki Heinonen, Aija Vahtola, Samuel Antão, Sampo Pyysalo |
EMNLP | 10 |
| 2023 | Scaling Data-Constrained Language ModelsabstractThe current trend of scaling language models involves increasing both parameter count and training dataset size. Extrapolating this trend suggests that training dataset size may soon be limited by the amount of text data available on the internet. Motivated by this limit, we investigate scaling language models in data-constrained regimes. Specifically, we run a large set of experiments varying the extent of data repetition and compute budget, ranging up to 900 billion training tokens and 9 billion parameter models. We find that with constrained data for a fixed compute budget, training with up to 4 epochs of repeated data yields negligible changes to loss compared to having unique data. However, with more repetition, the value of adding compute eventually decays to zero. We propose and empirically validate a scaling law for compute optimality that accounts for the decreasing value of repeated tokens and excess parameters. Finally, we experiment with approaches mitigating data scarcity, including augmenting the training dataset with code data or removing commonly used filters. Models and datasets from our 400 training runs are freely available at https://github.com/huggingface/datablations. Niklas Muennighoff, Alexander M. Rush, Boaz Barak, Teven Le Scao, Nouamane Tazi, Aleksandra Piktus, Sampo Pyysalo, Thomas Wolf 0008, Colin Raffel |
NeurIPS | 6 |
| 2021 | KILT: a Benchmark for Knowledge Intensive Language TasksabstractFabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, Vassilis Plachouras, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 2021. Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick S. H. Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, Vassilis Plachouras, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel 0001 |
NAACL-HLT | 2 |
| 2021 | PAQ: 65 Million Probably-Asked Questions and What You Can Do With ThemabstractAbstract Open-domain Question Answering models that directly leverage question-answer (QA) pairs, such as closed-book QA (CBQA) models and QA-pair retrievers, show promise in terms of speed and memory compared with conventional models which retrieve and read from text corpora. QA-pair retrievers also offer interpretable answers, a high degree of control, and are trivial to update at test time with new knowledge. However, these models fall short of the accuracy of retrieve-and-read systems, as substantially less knowledge is covered by the available QA-pairs relative to text corpora like Wikipedia. To facilitate improved QA-pair models, we introduce Probably Asked Questions (PAQ), a very large resource of 65M automatically generated QA-pairs. We introduce a new QA-pair retriever, RePAQ, to complement PAQ. We find that PAQ preempts and caches test questions, enabling RePAQ to match the accuracy of recent retrieve-and-read models, whilst being significantly faster. Using PAQ, we train CBQA models which outperform comparable baselines by 5%, but trail RePAQ by over 15%, indicating the effectiveness of explicit retrieval. RePAQ can be configured for size (under 500MB) or speed (over 1K questions per second) while retaining high accuracy. Lastly, we demonstrate RePAQ’s strength at selective QA, abstaining from answering when it is likely to be incorrect. This enables RePAQ to “back-off” to a more expensive state-of-the-art model, leading to a combined system which is both more accurate and 2x faster than the state-of-the-art model alone. Patrick S. H. Lewis, Yuxiang Wu, Linqing Liu, Pasquale Minervini, Heinrich Küttler, Aleksandra Piktus, Pontus Stenetorp, Sebastian Riedel 0001 |
Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics | 6 |
| 2020 | Generating Fact Checking BriefsabstractAngela Fan, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Guillaume Wenzek, Marzieh Saeidi, Andreas Vlachos, Antoine Bordes, Sebastian Riedel. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 2020. Angela Fan, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Guillaume Wenzek, Marzieh Saeidi, Andreas Vlachos 0001, Antoine Bordes, Sebastian Riedel 0001 |
EMNLP (1) | 2 |
| 2020 | Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP TasksabstractLarge pre-trained language models have been shown to store factual knowledge in their parameters, and achieve state-of-the-art results when fine-tuned on downstream NLP tasks. However, their ability to access and precisely manipulate knowledge is still limited, and hence on knowledge-intensive tasks, their performance lags behind task-specific architectures. Additionally, providing provenance for their decisions and updating their world knowledge remain open research problems. Pre-trained models with a differentiable access mechanism to explicit non-parametric memory can overcome this issue, but have so far been only investigated for extractive downstream tasks. We explore a general-purpose fine-tuning recipe for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) -- models which combine pre-trained parametric and non-parametric memory for language generation. We introduce RAG models where the parametric memory is a pre-trained seq2seq model and the non-parametric memory is a dense vector index of Wikipedia, accessed with a pre-trained neural retriever. We compare two RAG formulations, one which conditions on the same retrieved passages across the whole generated sequence, the other can use different passages per token. We fine-tune and evaluate our models on a wide range of knowledge-intensive NLP tasks and set the state-of-the-art on three open domain QA tasks, outperforming parametric seq2seq models and task-specific retrieve-and-extract architectures. For language generation tasks, we find that RAG models generate more specific, diverse and factual language than a state-of-the-art parametric-only seq2seq baseline. Patrick S. H. Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal 0001, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Scott Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel 0001, Douwe Kiela |
NeurIPS | 3 |