Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Prasanna Mayilvahanan
dblp:313/4018
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
3as 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 · 4 · 3 first-author · 4 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 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
4 papers |
Vision and language · 29% Language models and text generation · 16% Trustworthy machine learning · 15% |
Topics — the 13 heaviest of 13, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computer vision › Vision and language › vision-language model
CLIP |
1.6 | 2 | 2025 | In Search of Forgotten Domain Generalization · ICLR 2025 Does CLIP's generalization performance mainly stem from high train-test similarity? · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
out-of-distribution generalization |
1.6 | 2 | 2025 | In Search of Forgotten Domain Generalization · ICLR 2025 Does CLIP's generalization performance mainly stem from high train-test similarity? · ICLR 2024 |
Computer vision › Vision and language
vision-language model |
1.6 | 2 | 2025 | In Search of Forgotten Domain Generalization · ICLR 2025 Does CLIP's generalization performance mainly stem from high train-test similarity? · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
domain generalization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | In Search of Forgotten Domain Generalization · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
pre-training |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | LLMs on the Line: Data Determines Loss-to-Loss Scaling Laws · ICML 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model training › language model pretraining
pretraining data curation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | LLMs on the Line: Data Determines Loss-to-Loss Scaling Laws · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
scaling laws |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | LLMs on the Line: Data Determines Loss-to-Loss Scaling Laws · ICML 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
compositional generalization |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Compositional Generalization from First Principles · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Compositional Generalization from First Principles · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › causal representation learning › identifiability
identifiable representation learning |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Compositional Generalization from First Principles · NeurIPS 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model training
data mixing |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | In Search of Forgotten Domain Generalization · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
state space model |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | LLMs on the Line: Data Determines Loss-to-Loss Scaling Laws · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › data selection
data pruning |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Does CLIP's generalization performance mainly stem from high train-test similarity? · ICLR 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
scaling laws · 0.9domain mixing · 0.9dataset subsampling · 0.9retraining · 0.8data pruning · 0.8identifiability theory · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | In Search of Forgotten Domain GeneralizationabstractOut-of-Domain (OOD) generalization is the ability of a model trained on one or more domains to generalize to unseen domains. In the ImageNet era of computer vision, evaluation sets for measuring a model's OOD performance were designed to be strictly OOD with respect to style. However, the emergence of foundation models and expansive web-scale datasets has obfuscated this evaluation process, as datasets cover a broad range of domains and risk test domain contamination. In search of the forgotten domain generalization, we create large-scale datasets subsampled from LAION---LAION-Natural and LAION-Rendition---that are strictly OOD to corresponding ImageNet and DomainNet test sets in terms of style. Training CLIP models on these datasets reveals that a significant portion of their performance is explained by in-domain examples. This indicates that the OOD generalization challenges from the ImageNet era still prevail and that training on web-scale data merely creates the illusion of OOD generalization. Furthermore, through a systematic exploration of combining natural and rendition datasets in varying proportions, we identify optimal mixing ratios for model generalization across these domains. Our datasets and results re-enable meaningful assessment of OOD robustness at scale---a crucial prerequisite for improving model robustness. Prasanna Mayilvahanan, Roland S. Zimmermann, Thaddäus Wiedemer, Evgenia Rusak, Attila Juhos, Matthias Bethge, Wieland Brendel |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2025 | LLMs on the Line: Data Determines Loss-to-Loss Scaling LawsabstractScaling laws guide the development of large language models (LLMs) by offering estimates for the optimal balance of model size, tokens, and compute.
More recently, loss-to-loss scaling laws that relate losses across pretraining datasets and downstream tasks have emerged as a powerful tool for understanding and improving LLM performance and generalization.
In this work, we investigate which factors most strongly influence loss-to-loss scaling.
Our experiments reveal that the pretraining data determines the scaling trend.
In contrast, model size, optimization hyperparameters, tokenizer and even significant architectural differences, such as between transformer-based models like Llama and state-space models like Mamba, generally have limited impact.
Consequently, practitioners should carefully curate pretraining datasets for optimal downstream performance, while architectures and other settings can be freely optimized for training efficiency. Prasanna Mayilvahanan, Thaddäus Wiedemer, Sayak Mallick, Matthias Bethge, Wieland Brendel |
ICML | 1 |
| 2024 | Does CLIP's generalization performance mainly stem from high train-test similarity?abstractFoundation models like CLIP are trained on hundreds of millions of samples and effortlessly generalize to new tasks and inputs. Out of the box, CLIP shows stellar zero-shot and few-shot capabilities on a wide range of out-of-distribution (OOD) benchmarks, which prior works attribute mainly to today's large and comprehensive training dataset (like LAION). However, it is questionable how meaningful terms like out-of-distribution generalization are for CLIP as it seems likely that web-scale datasets like LAION simply contain many samples that are similar to common OOD benchmarks originally designed for ImageNet. To test this hypothesis, we retrain CLIP on pruned LAION splits that replicate ImageNet’s train-test similarity with respect to common OOD benchmarks. While we observe a performance drop on some benchmarks, surprisingly, CLIP’s overall performance remains high. This shows that high train-test similarity is insufficient to explain CLIP’s OOD performance, and other properties of the training data must drive CLIP to learn more generalizable representations. Additionally, by pruning data points that are dissimilar to the OOD benchmarks, we uncover a 100M split of LAION (¼ of its original size) on which CLIP can be trained to match its original OOD performance. Prasanna Mayilvahanan, Thaddäus Wiedemer, Evgenia Rusak, Matthias Bethge, Wieland Brendel |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2023 | Compositional Generalization from First PrinciplesabstractLeveraging the compositional nature of our world to expedite learning and facilitate generalization is a hallmark of human perception. In machine learning, on the other hand, achieving compositional generalization has proven to be an elusive goal, even for models with explicit compositional priors. To get a better handle on compositional generalization, we here approach it from the bottom up: Inspired by identifiable representation learning, we investigate compositionality as a property of the data-generating process rather than the data itself. This reformulation enables us to derive mild conditions on only the support of the training distribution and the model architecture, which are sufficient for compositional generalization. We further demonstrate how our theoretical framework applies to real-world scenarios and validate our findings empirically. Our results set the stage for a principled theoretical study of compositional generalization. Thaddäus Wiedemer, Prasanna Mayilvahanan, Matthias Bethge, Wieland Brendel |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2022 | Representation Learning for the Clustering of Multi-Omics DataabstractThe integration of several sources of data for the identification of subtypes of diseases has gained attention over the past few years. The heterogeneity and the high dimensions of the data sets calls for an adequate representation of the data. We summarize the field of representation learning for the multi-omics clustering problem and we investigate several techniques to learn relevant combined representations, using methods from group factor analysis (PCA, MFA and extensions) and from machine learning with autoencoders. We highlight the importance of appropriately designing and training the latter, notably with a novel combination of a disjointed deep autoencoder (DDAE) architecture and a layer-wise reconstruction loss. These different representations can then be clustered to identify biologically meaningful clusters of patients. We provide a unifying framework for model comparison between statistical and deep learning approaches with the introduction of a new weighted internal clustering index that evaluates how well the clustering information is retained from each source, favoring contributions from all data sets. We apply our methodology to two case studies for which previous works of integrative clustering exist, TCGA Breast Cancer and TARGET Neuroblastoma, and show how our method can yield good and well-balanced clusters across the different data sources. Gautier Viaud, Prasanna Mayilvahanan, Paul-Henry Cournède |
IEEE ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. | 2 |