Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Amanda Askell
dblp:244/9888
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
0as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 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
4 papers |
Language models and text generation · 56% Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 17% Vision and language · 12% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
alignment |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models · ICLR 2024 Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback · NeurIPS 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › alignment
sycophancy |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models · ICLR 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
instruction following |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
reinforcement learning from human feedback |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback · NeurIPS 2022 |
Computer vision › Vision and language › vision-language pretraining
contrastive vision-language pretraining |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
zero-shot transfer |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision · ICML 2021 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › neural language model
autoregressive language model |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Language Models are Few-Shot Learners · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
few-shot learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Language Models are Few-Shot Learners · NeurIPS 2020 |
Computer vision › Vision and language › cross-modal supervision
natural language supervision |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision · ICML 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
reinforcement learning from human feedback · 1.3preference modeling · 0.8supervised fine-tuning · 0.6pre-training · 0.5contrastive learning · 0.5in-context learning · 0.4autoregressive language model · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language ModelsabstractReinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is a popular technique for training high-quality AI assistants. However, RLHF may also encourage model responses that match user beliefs over truthful responses, a behavior known as sycophancy. We investigate the prevalence of sycophancy in RLHF-trained models and whether human preference judgments are responsible. We first demonstrate that five state-of-the-art AI assistants consistently exhibit sycophancy behavior across four varied free-form text-generation tasks. To understand if human preferences drive this broadly observed behavior of RLHF models, we analyze existing human preference data. We find that when a response matches a user's views, it is more likely to be preferred. Moreover, both humans and preference models (PMs) prefer convincingly-written sycophantic responses over correct ones a non-negligible fraction of the time. Optimizing model outputs against PMs also sometimes sacrifices truthfulness in favor of sycophancy. Overall, our results indicate that sycophancy is a general behavior of RLHF models, likely driven in part by human preference judgments favoring sycophantic responses. Mrinank Sharma, Meg Tong, Tomasz Korbak, David Duvenaud, Amanda Askell, Samuel R. Bowman, Esin Durmus, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Scott R. Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Timothy Maxwell, Sam McCandlish, Kamal Ndousse, Oliver Rausch, Nicholas Schiefer, Miranda Zhang, Ethan Perez |
ICLR | 5 |
| 2022 | Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackabstractMaking language models bigger does not inherently make them better at following a user's intent. For example, large language models can generate outputs that are untruthful, toxic, or simply not helpful to the user. In other words, these models are not aligned with their users. In this paper, we show an avenue for aligning language models with user intent on a wide range of tasks by fine-tuning with human feedback. Starting with a set of labeler-written prompts and prompts submitted through a language model API, we collect a dataset of labeler demonstrations of the desired model behavior, which we use to fine-tune GPT-3 using supervised learning. We then collect a dataset of rankings of model outputs, which we use to further fine-tune this supervised model using reinforcement learning from human feedback. We call the resulting models InstructGPT. In human evaluations on our prompt distribution, outputs from the 1.3B parameter InstructGPT model are preferred to outputs from the 175B GPT-3, despite having 100x fewer parameters. Moreover, InstructGPT models show improvements in truthfulness and reductions in toxic output generation while having minimal performance regressions on public NLP datasets. Even though InstructGPT still makes simple mistakes, our results show that fine-tuning with human feedback is a promising direction for aligning language models with human intent. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu 0003, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, Ryan Lowe |
NeurIPS | 16 |
| 2021 | Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language SupervisionabstractState-of-the-art computer vision systems are trained to predict a fixed set of predetermined object categories. This restricted form of supervision limits their generality and usability since additional labeled data is needed to specify any other visual concept. Learning directly from raw text about images is a promising alternative which leverages a much broader source of supervision. We demonstrate that the simple pre-training task of predicting which caption goes with which image is an efficient and scalable way to learn SOTA image representations from scratch on a dataset of 400 million (image, text) pairs collected from the internet. After pre-training, natural language is used to reference learned visual concepts (or describe new ones) enabling zero-shot transfer of the model to downstream tasks. We study the performance of this approach by benchmarking on over 30 different existing computer vision datasets, spanning tasks such as OCR, action recognition in videos, geo-localization, and many types of fine-grained object classification. The model transfers non-trivially to most tasks and is often competitive with a fully supervised baseline without the need for any dataset specific training. For instance, we match the accuracy of the original ResNet-50 on ImageNet zero-shot without needing to use any of the 1.28 million training examples it was trained on. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, Ilya Sutskever |
ICML | 8 |
| 2020 | Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersabstractWe demonstrate that scaling up language models greatly improves task-agnostic, few-shot performance, sometimes even becoming competitive with prior state-of-the-art fine-tuning approaches. Specifically, we train GPT-3, an autoregressive language model with 175 billion parameters, 10x more than any previous non-sparse language model, and test its performance in the few-shot setting. For all tasks, GPT-3 is applied without any gradient updates or fine-tuning, with tasks and few-shot demonstrations specified purely via text interaction with the model. GPT-3 achieves strong performance on many NLP datasets, including translation, question-answering, and cloze tasks. We also identify some datasets where GPT-3's few-shot learning still struggles, as well as some datasets where GPT-3 faces methodological issues related to training on large web corpora. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Thomas Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeff Wu 0003, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen 0003, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, Dario Amodei |
NeurIPS | 10 |