Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sanae Lotfi
dblp:281/6627
· DBLP profile ↗
8ranked-venue papers
4as first author
8since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 8 · 4 first-author · 8 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
8 papers |
Learning theory · 31% Efficient and distributed learning · 21% Deep learning architectures and training · 16% |
Topics — the 27 heaviest of 27, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization bounds |
2.1 | 3 | 2024 | Unlocking Tokens as Data Points for Generalization Bounds on Larger Language Models · NeurIPS 2024 Non-Vacuous Generalization Bounds for Large Language Models · ICML 2024 PAC-Bayes Compression Bounds So Tight That They Can Explain Generalization · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds
compression bounds |
1.6 | 3 | 2024 | Unlocking Tokens as Data Points for Generalization Bounds on Larger Language Models · NeurIPS 2024 PAC-Bayes Compression Bounds So Tight That They Can Explain Generalization · NeurIPS 2022 Non-Vacuous Generalization Bounds for Large Language Models · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
model compression |
1.6 | 3 | 2024 | Non-Vacuous Generalization Bounds for Large Language Models · ICML 2024 PAC-Bayes Compression Bounds So Tight That They Can Explain Generalization · NeurIPS 2022 Unlocking Tokens as Data Points for Generalization Bounds on Larger Language Models · NeurIPS 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model |
1.5 | 2 | 2024 | Unlocking Tokens as Data Points for Generalization Bounds on Larger Language Models · NeurIPS 2024 Non-Vacuous Generalization Bounds for Large Language Models · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds
PAC-Bayes bounds |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | Unlocking Tokens as Data Points for Generalization Bounds on Larger Language Models · NeurIPS 2024 PAC-Bayes Compression Bounds So Tight That They Can Explain Generalization · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
attention mechanism |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Customizing the Inductive Biases of Softmax Attention using Structured Matrices · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
memory-efficient training |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Small Batch Size Training for Language Models: When Vanilla SGD Works, and Why Gradient Accumulation is Wasteful · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › attention mechanism
softmax attention |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Customizing the Inductive Biases of Softmax Attention using Structured Matrices · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression
structured matrices |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Customizing the Inductive Biases of Softmax Attention using Structured Matrices · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
training optimization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Small Batch Size Training for Language Models: When Vanilla SGD Works, and Why Gradient Accumulation is Wasteful · NeurIPS 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › linguistic generalization
language model generalization |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Non-Vacuous Generalization Bounds for Large Language Models · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds
non-vacuous generalization bounds |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Non-Vacuous Generalization Bounds for Large Language Models · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference
bayesian model selection |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Bayesian Model Selection, the Marginal Likelihood, and Generalization · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Bayesian Model Selection, the Marginal Likelihood, and Generalization · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
marginal likelihood |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Bayesian Model Selection, the Marginal Likelihood, and Generalization · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression › quantization
quantized neural network |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | PAC-Bayes Compression Bounds So Tight That They Can Explain Generalization · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › bayesian model selection › model averaging
bayesian model averaging |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Dangers of Bayesian Model Averaging under Covariate Shift · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
bayesian neural networks |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Dangers of Bayesian Model Averaging under Covariate Shift · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation › domain shift
covariate shift |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Dangers of Bayesian Model Averaging under Covariate Shift · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods › ensemble learning
deep ensembles |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Loss Surface Simplexes for Mode Connecting Volumes and Fast Ensembling · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
ensemble learning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Loss Surface Simplexes for Mode Connecting Volumes and Fast Ensembling · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › loss landscape
loss landscape geometry |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Loss Surface Simplexes for Mode Connecting Volumes and Fast Ensembling · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression › quantization
post-training quantization |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Unlocking Tokens as Data Points for Generalization Bounds on Larger Language Models · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
hyperparameter optimization |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Bayesian Model Selection, the Marginal Likelihood, and Generalization · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › automated machine learning
neural architecture search |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Bayesian Model Selection, the Marginal Likelihood, and Generalization · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference
approximate inference |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Dangers of Bayesian Model Averaging under Covariate Shift · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods › markov chain monte carlo
hamiltonian monte carlo |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Dangers of Bayesian Model Averaging under Covariate Shift · NeurIPS 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
bayesian inference · 1.1stochastic gradient descent · 0.9multi-level low rank matrix · 0.9gradient accumulation · 0.9block tensor-train matrix · 0.9adam · 0.9LoRA · 0.9prediction smoothing · 0.8compression bounds · 0.8SubLoRA · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Customizing the Inductive Biases of Softmax Attention using Structured MatricesabstractThe core component of attention is the scoring function, which transforms the inputs into low-dimensional queries and keys and takes the dot product of each pair. While the low-dimensional projection improves efficiency, it causes information loss for certain tasks that have intrinsically high-dimensional inputs. Additionally, attention uses the same scoring function for all input pairs, without imposing a distance-dependent compute bias for neighboring tokens in the sequence. In this work, we address these shortcomings by proposing new scoring functions based on computationally efficient structured matrices with high ranks, including Block Tensor-Train (BTT) and Multi-Level Low Rank (MLR) matrices. On in-context regression tasks with high-dimensional inputs, our proposed scoring functions outperform standard attention for any fixed compute budget. On language modeling, a task that exhibits locality patterns, our MLR-based attention method achieves improved scaling laws compared to both standard attention and variants of sliding window attention.
Additionally, we show that both BTT and MLR fall under a broader family of efficient structured matrices capable of encoding either full-rank or distance-dependent compute biases, thereby addressing significant shortcomings of standard attention. Yilun Kuang, Noah Amsel, Sanae Lotfi, Shikai Qiu, Andres Potapczynski, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
ICML | 3 |
| 2025 | Small Batch Size Training for Language Models: When Vanilla SGD Works, and Why Gradient Accumulation is WastefulabstractConventional wisdom dictates that small batch sizes make language model pretraining and fine-tuning unstable, motivating gradient accumulation, which trades off the number of optimizer steps for a proportional increase in batch size. While it is common to decrease the learning rate for smaller batch sizes, other hyperparameters are often held fixed. In this work, we revisit small batch sizes all the way down to batch size one, and we propose a rule for scaling Adam hyperparameters to small batch sizes. In particular, rather than holding the decay rate of the second moment fixed across batch sizes, we propose to hold its half-life fixed in terms of tokens. We find that small batch sizes (1) train stably, (2) are consistently more robust to hyperparameter choices, (3) achieve equal or better per-FLOP performance than larger batch sizes, and (4) notably enable stable language model training with vanilla SGD, even without momentum, despite storing no optimizer state. Building on these results, we provide practical recommendations for selecting a batch size and setting optimizer hyperparameters. We further recommend against gradient accumulation unless training on multiple devices with multiple model replicas. Finally, we show that a small batch size combined with an optimizer with a small state size can provide the performance benefits of full fine-tuning while maintaining a similar memory footprint to LoRA. Martin Marek, Sanae Lotfi, Aditya Somasundaram, Andrew Gordon Wilson, Micah Goldblum |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2024 | Non-Vacuous Generalization Bounds for Large Language ModelsabstractModern language models can contain billions of parameters, raising the question of whether they can generalize beyond the training data or simply parrot their training corpora. We provide the first non-vacuous generalization bounds for pretrained large language models (LLMs), indicating that language models are capable of discovering regularities that generalize to unseen data. In particular, we derive a compression bound that is valid for the unbounded log-likelihood loss using prediction smoothing, and we extend the bound to handle subsampling, making bound computation 900 times faster on massive datasets. To achieve the extreme level of compression required for non-vacuous bounds, we devise SubLoRA, a simple low-dimensional nonlinear parameterization that leads to non-vacuous generalization bounds for very large models with up to 849 million parameters. Finally, we use our bounds to understand LLM generalization and find that larger models have better generalization bounds and are more compressible than smaller models. Sanae Lotfi, Marc Finzi, Yilun Kuang, Tim G. J. Rudner, Micah Goldblum, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
ICML | 1 |
| 2024 | Unlocking Tokens as Data Points for Generalization Bounds on Larger Language ModelsabstractLarge language models (LLMs) with billions of parameters excel at predicting the next token in a sequence. Recent work computes non-vacuous compression-based generalization bounds for LLMs, but these bounds are vacuous for large models at the billion-parameter scale. Moreover, these bounds are obtained through restrictive compression techniques, bounding compressed models that generate low-quality text. Additionally, the tightness of these existing bounds depends on the number of IID documents in a training set rather than the much larger number of non-IID constituent tokens, leaving untapped potential for tighter bounds. In this work, we instead use properties of martingales to derive generalization bounds that benefit from the vast number of tokens in LLM training sets. Since a dataset contains far more tokens than documents, our generalization bounds not only tolerate but actually benefit from far less restrictive compression schemes. With Monarch matrices, Kronecker factorizations, and post-training quantization, we achieve non-vacuous generalization bounds for LLMs as large as LLaMA2-70B. Unlike previous approaches, our work achieves the first non-vacuous bounds for models that are deployed in practice and generate high-quality text. Sanae Lotfi, Yilun Kuang, Marc Finzi, Brandon Amos, Micah Goldblum, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2022 | Bayesian Model Selection, the Marginal Likelihood, and GeneralizationabstractHow do we compare between hypotheses that are entirely consistent with observations? The marginal likelihood (aka Bayesian evidence), which represents the probability of generating our observations from a prior, provides a distinctive approach to this foundational question, automatically encoding Occam’s razor. Although it has been observed that the marginal likelihood can overfit and is sensitive to prior assumptions, its limitations for hyperparameter learning and discrete model comparison have not been thoroughly investigated. We first revisit the appealing properties of the marginal likelihood for learning constraints and hypothesis testing. We then highlight the conceptual and practical issues in using the marginal likelihood as a proxy for generalization. Namely, we show how marginal likelihood can be negatively correlated with generalization, with implications for neural architecture search, and can lead to both underfitting and overfitting in hyperparameter learning. We provide a partial remedy through a conditional marginal likelihood, which we show is more aligned with generalization, and practically valuable for large-scale hyperparameter learning, such as in deep kernel learning. Sanae Lotfi, Pavel Izmailov, Greg Benton, Micah Goldblum, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
ICML | 1 |
| 2022 | PAC-Bayes Compression Bounds So Tight That They Can Explain GeneralizationabstractWhile there has been progress in developing non-vacuous generalization bounds for deep neural networks, these bounds tend to be uninformative about why deep learning works. In this paper, we develop a compression approach based on quantizing neural network parameters in a linear subspace, profoundly improving on previous results to provide state-of-the-art generalization bounds on a variety of tasks, including transfer learning. We use these tight bounds to better understand the role of model size, equivariance, and the implicit biases of optimization, for generalization in deep learning. Notably, we find large models can be compressed to a much greater extent than previously known, encapsulating Occam’s razor. Sanae Lotfi, Marc Finzi, Sanyam Kapoor, Andres Potapczynski, Micah Goldblum, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2021 | Loss Surface Simplexes for Mode Connecting Volumes and Fast EnsemblingabstractWith a better understanding of the loss surfaces for multilayer networks, we can build more robust and accurate training procedures. Recently it was discovered that independently trained SGD solutions can be connected along one-dimensional paths of near-constant training loss. In this paper, we in fact demonstrate the existence of mode-connecting simplicial complexes that form multi-dimensional manifolds of low loss, connecting many independently trained models. Building on this discovery, we show how to efficiently construct simplicial complexes for fast ensembling, outperforming independently trained deep ensembles in accuracy, calibration, and robustness to dataset shift. Notably, our approach is easy to apply and only requires a few training epochs to discover a low-loss simplex. Greg Benton, Wesley J. Maddox, Sanae Lotfi, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
ICML | 3 |
| 2021 | Dangers of Bayesian Model Averaging under Covariate ShiftabstractApproximate Bayesian inference for neural networks is considered a robust alternative to standard training, often providing good performance on out-of-distribution data. However, Bayesian neural networks (BNNs) with high-fidelity approximate inference via full-batch Hamiltonian Monte Carlo achieve poor generalization under covariate shift, even underperforming classical estimation. We explain this surprising result, showing how a Bayesian model average can in fact be problematic under covariate shift, particularly in cases where linear dependencies in the input features cause a lack of posterior contraction. We additionally show why the same issue does not affect many approximate inference procedures, or classical maximum a-posteriori (MAP) training. Finally, we propose novel priors that improve the robustness of BNNs to many sources of covariate shift. Pavel Izmailov, Patrick Nicholson, Sanae Lotfi, Andrew Gordon Wilson |
NeurIPS | 3 |