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

Ahmed M. Ahmed 0004

dblp:294/5028 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 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
2 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 30% Learning theory · 30% Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 20%
Network and information security
1 paper
Security and privacy of machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning theory › hypothesis testing
independence testing
0.912025
Independence Tests for Language Models · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
model provenance
0.912025
Independence Tests for Language Models · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › function approximation
representation learning for reinforcement learning
0.612022
Cross-Trajectory Representation Learning for Zero-Shot Generalization in RL · ICLR 2022
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
zero-shot transfer
0.612022
Cross-Trajectory Representation Learning for Zero-Shot Generalization in RL · ICLR 2022

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

statistical hypothesis testing · 1.7hidden activation matching · 1.7exchangeability simulation · 1.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Independence Tests for Language Models
abstract
Motivated by liability and intellectual property concerns over open-weight models we consider the following problem: given the weights of two models, can we test whether they were trained independently—i.e., from independent random initializations? We consider two settings: constrained and unconstrained. In the constrained setting, we make assumptions about model architecture and training and propose statistical tests that yield exact p-values with respect to the null hypothesis that the models are trained from independent random initializations. We compute the p-values by simulating exchangeable copies of each model under our assumptions and comparing various similarity measures between the original two models versus these copies. We report p-values on pairs of 21 open-weight models (210 total pairs) and find we correctly identify all pairs of non-independent models. In the unconstrained setting we make none of the prior assumptions and allow for adversarial evasion attacks that do not change model output. We thus propose a new test which matches hidden activations between two models, which is robust to these transformations and to changes in model architecture and can also identify specific non-independent components of models. Though we no longer obtain exact p-values from this test, empirically we find it reliably distinguishes non-independent models like a p-value. Notably, we can use the test to identify specific parts of one model that are derived from another (e.g., how Llama 3.1-8B was pruned to initialize Llama 3.2-3B, or shared layers between Mistral-7B and StripedHyena-7B), and it is even robust to retraining individual layers of either model from scratch.
Sally Zhu, Ahmed M. Ahmed 0004, Rohith Kuditipudi, Percy Liang
ICML2
2022 Cross-Trajectory Representation Learning for Zero-Shot Generalization in RL
Bogdan Mazoure, Ahmed M. Ahmed 0004, R. Devon Hjelm, Andrey Kolobov, Patrick MacAlpine
ICLR2