Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Adrien Morisot

dblp:271/0163 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 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
3 papers
Efficient and distributed learning · 36% Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 32% Representation and self-supervised learning · 16%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
cross-task generalization
0.912025
To Code or Not To Code? Exploring Impact of Code in Pre-training · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › pre-training
pretraining data
0.912025
To Code or Not To Code? Exploring Impact of Code in Pre-training · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
data-efficient learning
0.612022
Prioritized Training on Points that are Learnable, Worth Learning, and not yet Learnt · ICML 2022
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
data selection
0.612022
Prioritized Training on Points that are Learnable, Worth Learning, and not yet Learnt · ICML 2022
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › efficient training
training acceleration
0.612022
Prioritized Training on Points that are Learnable, Worth Learning, and not yet Learnt · ICML 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

prompt engineering · 0.9language model pretraining · 0.9fine-tuning · 0.9ablation study · 0.9importance sampling · 0.6holdout loss · 0.6curriculum learning · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 To Code or Not To Code? Exploring Impact of Code in Pre-training
abstract
Including code in the pre-training data mixture, even for models not specifically designed for code, has become a common practice in LLMs pre-training. While there has been anecdotal consensus among practitioners that code data plays a vital role in general LLMs' performance, there is only limited work analyzing the precise impact of code on non-code tasks. In this work, we systematically investigate the impact of code data on general performance. We ask “what is the impact of code data used in pre-training on a large variety of downstream tasks beyond code generation”. We conduct extensive ablations and evaluate across a broad range of natural language reasoning tasks, world knowledge tasks, code benchmarks, and LLM-as-a-judge win-rates for models with sizes ranging from 470M to 2.8B parameters. Across settings, we find a consistent results that code is a critical building block for generalization far beyond coding tasks and improvements to code quality have an outsized impact across all tasks. In particular, compared to text-only pre-training, the addition of code results in up to relative increase of 8.2% in natural language (NL) reasoning, 4.2% in world knowledge, 6.6% improvement in generative win-rates, and a 12x boost in code performance respectively. Our work suggests investments in code quality and preserving code during pre-training have positive impacts.
Viraat Aryabumi, Yixuan Su, Raymond Ma, Adrien Morisot, Ivan Zhang, Acyr Locatelli, Marzieh Fadaee, Ahmet Üstün, Sara Hooker
ICLR4
2025 Treasure Hunt: Real-time Targeting of the Long Tail using Training-Time Markers
abstract
One of the most profound challenges of modern machine learning is performing well on the long-tail of rare and underrepresented features. Large general-purpose models are trained for many tasks, but work best on high-frequency use cases. After training, it is hard to adapt a model to perform well on specific use cases underrepresented in the training corpus. Relying on prompt engineering or few-shot examples to maximize the output quality on a particular test case can be frustrating, as models can be highly sensitive to small changes, react in unpredicted ways or rely on a fixed system prompt for maintaining performance. In this work, we ask: Can we optimize our training protocols to both improve controllability and performance on underrepresented use cases at inference time? We revisit the divide between training and inference techniques to improve long-tail performance while providing users with a set of control levers the model is trained to be responsive to. We create a detailed taxonomy of data characteristics and task provenance to explicitly control generation attributes and implicitly condition generations at inference time. We fine-tune a base model to infer these markers automatically, which makes them optional at inference time. This principled and flexible approach yields pronounced improvements in performance on examples from the long tail of the training distribution. Overall, we observe lifts of 5.7% across all tasks. However, treasure markers are particularly effective at finding difficult to obtain gains in the long-tail. We observe relative lifts of up to 14.1% on underrepresented tasks like CodeRepair and absolute improvements of 35.3% on length instruction following evaluations.
Daniel D'souza, Julia Kreutzer, Adrien Morisot, Ahmet Üstün, Sara Hooker
NeurIPS3
2022 Prioritized Training on Points that are Learnable, Worth Learning, and not yet Learnt
abstract
Training on web-scale data can take months. But much computation and time is wasted on redundant and noisy points that are already learnt or not learnable. To accelerate training, we introduce Reducible Holdout Loss Selection (RHO-LOSS), a simple but principled technique which selects approximately those points for training that most reduce the model’s generalization loss. As a result, RHO-LOSS mitigates the weaknesses of existing data selection methods: techniques from the optimization literature typically select "hard" (e.g. high loss) points, but such points are often noisy (not learnable) or less task-relevant. Conversely, curriculum learning prioritizes "easy" points, but such points need not be trained on once learned. In contrast, RHO-LOSS selects points that are learnable, worth learning, and not yet learnt. RHO-LOSS trains in far fewer steps than prior art, improves accuracy, and speeds up training on a wide range of datasets, hyperparameters, and architectures (MLPs, CNNs, and BERT). On the large web-scraped image dataset Clothing-1M, RHO-LOSS trains in 18x fewer steps and reaches 2% higher final accuracy than uniform data shuffling.
Sören Mindermann, Jan Markus Brauner, Muhammed Razzak, Mrinank Sharma, Andreas Kirsch 0002, Winnie Xu, Benedikt Höltgen, Aidan N. Gomez, Adrien Morisot, Sebastian Farquhar, Yarin Gal
ICML9