Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Leo Gao
dblp:279/3125
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
2as 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 · 6 · 2 first-author · 5 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1
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 · 34% Trustworthy machine learning · 27% Learning paradigms · 14% |
Topics — the 12 heaviest of 14, 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 |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervision · ICML 2024 Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
reinforcement learning from human feedback |
0.9 | 2 | 2024 | Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization · ICML 2023 Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervision · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning
feature extraction |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › mechanistic interpretability
sparse autoencoder |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervision · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
weakly supervised learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervision · ICML 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › alignment › scalable oversight
weak-to-strong generalization |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervision · ICML 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › alignment
reward overoptimization |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
multi-task learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization · ICLR 2022 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation › zero-shot learning
zero-shot task generalization |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization · ICLR 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › alignment
scalable oversight |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervision · ICML 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
scaling laws · 0.9k-sparse autoencoders · 0.9fine-tuning · 0.8auxiliary confidence loss · 0.8best-of-n sampling · 0.7KL penalty · 0.7multitask prompted training · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencodersabstractSparse autoencoders provide a promising unsupervised approach for extracting interpretable features from a language model by reconstructing activations from a sparse bottleneck layer. Since language models learn many concepts, autoencoders need to be very large to recover all relevant features. However, studying the properties of autoencoder scaling is difficult due to the need to balance reconstruction and sparsity objectives and the presence of dead latents. We propose using k-sparse autoencoders [Makhzani and Frey, 2013] to directly control sparsity, simplifying tuning and improving the reconstruction-sparsity frontier. Additionally, we find modifications that result in few dead latents, even at the largest scales we tried. Using these techniques, we find clean scaling laws with respect to autoencoder size and sparsity. We also introduce several new metrics for evaluating feature quality based on the recovery of hypothesized features, the explainability of activation patterns, and the sparsity of downstream effects. These metrics all generally improve with autoencoder size. To demonstrate the scalability of our approach, we train a 16 million latent autoencoder on GPT-4 activations for 40 billion tokens. We release training code and autoencoders for open-source models, as well as a visualizer. Leo Gao, Tom Dupré la Tour, Henk Tillman, Gabriel Goh, Rajan Troll, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, Jan Leike, Jeff Wu 0003 |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2024 | Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak SupervisionabstractWidely used alignment techniques, such as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), rely on the ability of humans to supervise model behavior—for example, to evaluate whether a model faithfully followed instructions or generated safe outputs. However, future superhuman models will behave in complex ways too difficult for humans to reliably evaluate; humans will only be able to weakly supervise superhuman models. We study an analogy to this problem: can weak model supervision elicit the full capabilities of a much stronger model? We test this using a range of pretrained language models in the GPT-4 family on natural language processing (NLP), chess, and reward modeling tasks. We find that when we naively finetune strong pretrained models on labels generated by a weak model, they consistently perform better than their weak supervisors, a phenomenon we call weak-to-strong generalization. However, we are still far from recovering the full capabilities of strong models with naive finetuning alone, suggesting that techniques like RLHF may scale poorly to superhuman models without further work. We find that simple methods can often significantly improve weak-to-strong generalization: for example, when finetuning GPT-4 with a GPT-2-level supervisor and an auxiliary confidence loss, we can recover close to GPT-3.5-level performance on NLP tasks. Our results suggest that it is feasible to make empirical progress today on a fundamental challenge of aligning superhuman models. Collin Burns, Pavel Izmailov, Jan Hendrik Kirchner, Bowen Baker, Leo Gao, Leopold Aschenbrenner, Adrien Ecoffet, Manas Joglekar, Jan Leike, Ilya Sutskever, Jeff Wu 0003 |
ICML | 5 |
| 2023 | Scaling Laws for Reward Model OveroptimizationabstractIn reinforcement learning from human feedback, it is common to optimize against a reward model trained to predict human preferences. Because the reward model is an imperfect proxy, optimizing its value too much can hinder ground truth performance, in accordance with Goodhart’s law. This effect has been frequently observed, but not carefully measured due to the expense of collecting human preference data. In this work, we use a synthetic setup in which a fixed “gold-standard” reward model plays the role of humans, providing labels used to train a proxy reward model. We study how the gold reward model score changes as we optimize against the proxy reward model using either reinforcement learning or best-of-$n$ sampling. We find that this relationship follows a different functional form depending on the method of optimization, and that in both cases its coefficients scale smoothly with the number of reward model parameters. We also study the effect on this relationship of the size of the reward model dataset, the number of reward model and policy parameters, and the coefficient of the KL penalty added to the reward in the reinforcement learning setup. We explore the implications of these empirical results for theoretical considerations in AI alignment. Leo Gao, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton |
ICML | 1 |
| 2022 | Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization
Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim 0002, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal V. Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen 0001, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Févry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf 0008, Alexander M. Rush |
ICLR | 38 |
| 2021 | Collaborative Storytelling with Social RobotsabstractStorytelling plays a central role in human socializing and entertainment, and research on conducting storytelling with robots is gaining interest. However, much of this research assumes that story content is curated. In this paper, we expand the recently-proposed task of collaborative storytelling, where an intelligent agent and a person collaborate to create a unique story by taking turns adding to it, for application to social robot and consider the design implications that arise. Since latency can be detrimental to human-robot interaction, we examine the performance-latency trade-offs of an existing generate-and-rank-based approach to collaborative storytelling by finding the optimal ranker’s sample size that strikes the best balance between quality and computational cost. We improve on existing evaluation that was previously based on system-generated stories by having human participants play the collaborative storytelling game with our system and comparing the stories they create with our system to a naive baseline. Finally, we conduct a pilot elicitation survey that sheds light on issues to consider when adapting our collaborative storytelling system to a social robot. Our evaluation shows that participants have a positive view of collaborative storytelling with a social robot and consider rich, emoting capabilities to be key to enjoyment. Eric Nichols, Leo Gao, Yurii Vasylkiv, Randy Gomez |
IROS | 2 |
| 2020 | Collaborative Storytelling with Large-scale Neural Language ModelsabstractStorytelling plays a central role in human socializing and entertainment. However, much of the research on automatic storytelling generation assumes that stories will be generated by an agent without any human interaction. In this paper, we introduce the task of collaborative storytelling, where an artificial intelligence agent and a person collaborate to create a unique story by taking turns adding to it. We present a collaborative storytelling system which works with a human storyteller to create a story by generating new utterances based on the story so far. We constructed the storytelling system by tuning a publicly-available large scale language model on a dataset of writing prompts and their accompanying fictional works. We identify generating sufficiently human-like utterances to be an important technical issue and propose a sample-and-rank approach to improve utterance quality. Quantitative evaluation shows that our approach outperforms a baseline, and we present qualitative evaluation of our system’s capabilities. Eric Nichols, Leo Gao, Randy Gomez |
MIG | 2 |