Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jannes Gladrow
dblp:252/5477
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0002-2973-4492ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 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.
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Storage systems · 46% Cloud and datacenter computing · 23% Interconnection networks and networks-on-chip · 23% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Deep learning architectures and training · 87% Efficient and distributed learning · 13% |
Topics — the 8 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
recurrent neural network |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Implicit Language Models are RNNs: Balancing Parallelization and Expressivity · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
state space model |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Implicit Language Models are RNNs: Balancing Parallelization and Expressivity · ICML 2025 |
Cloud and datacenter computing
cloud storage |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Holographic Storage for the Cloud: advances and challenges · ACM Trans. Storage 2025 |
Storage systems › optical storage
holographic memory |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Holographic Storage for the Cloud: advances and challenges · ACM Trans. Storage 2025 |
Interconnection networks and networks-on-chip
spatial multiplexing |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Holographic Storage for the Cloud: advances and challenges · ACM Trans. Storage 2025 |
Storage systems › storage device technology
storage density |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Holographic Storage for the Cloud: advances and challenges · ACM Trans. Storage 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › distributed training
parallelization |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Implicit Language Models are RNNs: Balancing Parallelization and Expressivity · ICML 2025 |
Energy-efficient computing
storage energy efficiency |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Holographic Storage for the Cloud: advances and challenges · ACM Trans. Storage 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
workload-driven optimization · 0.9physics modeling · 0.9machine learning · 0.9implicit models · 0.9fixed-point iteration · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Implicit Language Models are RNNs: Balancing Parallelization and ExpressivityabstractState-space models (SSMs) and transformers dominate the language modeling landscape. However, they are constrained to a lower computational complexity than classical recurrent neural networks (RNNs), limiting their expressivity. In contrast, RNNs lack parallelization during training, raising fundamental questions about the trade off between parallelization and expressivity. We propose implicit SSMs, which iterate a transformation until convergence to a fixed point. Theoretically, we show that implicit SSMs implement the non-linear state-transitions of RNNs. Empirically, we find that only approximate fixed-point convergence suffices, enabling the design of a scalable training curriculum that largely retains parallelization, with full convergence required only for a small subset of tokens. Our approach demonstrates superior state-tracking capabilities on regular languages, surpassing transformers and SSMs. We further scale implicit SSMs to natural language reasoning tasks and pretraining of large-scale language models up to 1.3B parameters on 207B tokens - representing, to our knowledge, the largest implicit model trained to date. Notably, our implicit models outperform their explicit counterparts on standard benchmarks. Our code is publicly available at github.com/microsoft/implicit_languagemodels Mark Schöne, Babak Rahmani, Heiner Kremer, Fabian Falck, Hitesh Ballani, Jannes Gladrow |
ICML | 6 |
| 2025 | Holographic Storage for the Cloud: advances and challengesabstractHolographic Storage is an old idea that has always promised high density and fast random access, but has never been commercially competitive with Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) and Solid State Devices (SSDs). In Project HSD at Microsoft Research we asked the question: “Does holographic storage finally make sense for cloud storage?” This article describes our journey toward answering this question. We achieved 1.8× higher density than the previous state-of-the-art, using commodity components available today and leveraging machine learning to compensate for the noise and distortions introduced by commodity components. This uncovered two new challenges which are the focus of this article: achieving high end-to-end energy efficiency without sacrificing capacity, and spatial multiplexing without mechanical movement. Improving end-to-end energy efficiency requires joint optimization across low-level media parameters and higher-level system parameters that govern background maintenance operations such as read refresh and garbage collection. We developed new physics models of the media; analytic and simulation models of the media access and background media maintenance; and workload-driven optimization to find optimal parameter combinations. These techniques resulted in a 14× improvement over the previous approach for typical workloads without sacrificing capacity. We also designed the first scalable and mechanical movement free spatial multiplexing system for holographic storage. Despite these advances, we conclude that currently, holographic storage is still far from the combination of density, capacity scaling, and energy efficiency needed to compete with the incumbent technologies. We need fundamental advances in the physical media that improve energy efficiency by another 1–2 orders of magnitude without reducing data density. Further advances in optics are also required to achieve spatial multiplexing that is simultaneously scalable, low-loss, and high-density. Nathanael Cheriere, Jiaqi Chu, Grace Brennan, Pashmina Cameron, Pedro Da Costa, Jannes Gladrow, Guilherme Ilunga, Douglas J. Kelly, Joowon Lim, Giorgio Maltese, Tony Mason, Greg O'Shea, Soujanya Ponnapalli, Michael Rudow, Alan Sanders, Theano Stavrinos, Xingbo Wu, Mengyang Yang, Dushyanth Narayanan, Benn C. Thomsen, Antony I. T. Rowstron |
ACM Trans. Storage | 6 |