Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Samuel Lippl
dblp:313/3306
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
2as 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 first-author · 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 |
Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 31% Language models and text generation · 18% Learning paradigms · 15% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
compositional generalization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | When does compositional structure yield compositional generalization? A kernel theory · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
feature reuse |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Inductive biases of multi-task learning and finetuning: multiple regimes of feature reuse · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
fine-tuning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Inductive biases of multi-task learning and finetuning: multiple regimes of feature reuse · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
implicit regularization |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Inductive biases of multi-task learning and finetuning: multiple regimes of feature reuse · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
inductive bias |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Inductive biases of multi-task learning and finetuning: multiple regimes of feature reuse · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
multi-task learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Inductive biases of multi-task learning and finetuning: multiple regimes of feature reuse · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning
compositional representation |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | When does compositional structure yield compositional generalization? A kernel theory · ICLR 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
kernel model · 0.9deep neural network · 0.9weight rescaling · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | When does compositional structure yield compositional generalization? A kernel theoryabstractCompositional generalization (the ability to respond correctly to novel combinations of familiar components) is thought to be a cornerstone of intelligent behavior. Compositionally structured (e.g. disentangled) representations support this ability; however, the conditions under which they are sufficient for the emergence of compositional generalization remain unclear. To address this gap, we present a theory of compositional generalization in kernel models with fixed, compositionally structured representations. This provides a tractable framework for characterizing the impact of training data statistics on generalization. We find that these models are limited to functions that assign values to each combination of components seen during training, and then sum up these values ("conjunction-wise additivity"). This imposes fundamental restrictions on the set of tasks compositionally structured kernel models can learn, in particular preventing them from transitively generalizing equivalence relations. Even for compositional tasks that they can learn in principle, we identify novel failure modes in compositional generalization (memorization leak and shortcut bias) that arise from biases in the training data. Finally, we empirically validate our theory, showing that it captures the behavior of deep neural networks (convolutional networks, residual networks, and Vision Transformers) trained on a set of compositional tasks with similarly structured data. Ultimately, this work examines how statistical structure in the training data can affect compositional generalization, with implications for how to identify and remedy failure modes in deep learning models. Samuel Lippl, Kimberly L. Stachenfeld |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2024 | Inductive biases of multi-task learning and finetuning: multiple regimes of feature reuseabstractNeural networks are often trained on multiple tasks, either simultaneously (multi-task learning, MTL) or sequentially (pretraining and subsequent finetuning, PT+FT). In particular, it is common practice to pretrain neural networks on a large auxiliary task before finetuning on a downstream task with fewer samples. Despite the prevalence of this approach, the inductive biases that arise from learning multiple tasks are poorly characterized. In this work, we address this gap. We describe novel implicit regularization penalties associated with MTL and PT+FT in diagonal linear networks and single-hidden-layer ReLU networks. These penalties indicate that MTL and PT+FT induce the network to reuse features in different ways. 1) Both MTL and PT+FT exhibit biases towards feature reuse between tasks, and towards sparsity in the set of learned features. We show a "conservation law" that implies a direct tradeoff between these two biases. 2) PT+FT exhibits a novel "nested feature selection" regime, not described by either the "lazy" or "rich" regimes identified in prior work, which biases it to *rely on a sparse subset* of the features learned during pretraining. This regime is much narrower for MTL. 3) PT+FT (but not MTL) in ReLU networks benefits from features that are correlated between the auxiliary and main task. We confirm these findings empirically with teacher-student models, and introduce a technique -- weight rescaling following pretraining -- that can elicit the nested feature selection regime. Finally, we validate our theory in deep neural networks trained on image classification. We find that weight rescaling improves performance when it causes models to display signatures of nested feature selection. Our results suggest that nested feature selection may be an important inductive bias for finetuning neural networks. Samuel Lippl, Jack W. Lindsey |
NeurIPS | 1 |