Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Yana Veitsman
dblp:378/1390
· DBLP profile ↗
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 |
Deep learning architectures and training · 47% Language models and text generation · 32% Graph learning · 22% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, 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
length generalization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Born a Transformer - Always a Transformer? On the Effect of Pretraining on Architectural Abilities · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › neural network expressivity
transformer expressivity |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Born a Transformer - Always a Transformer? On the Effect of Pretraining on Architectural Abilities · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Graph learning › graph neural network
expressive power |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | The Expressive Capacity of State Space Models: A Formal Language Perspective · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
state space model |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | The Expressive Capacity of State Space Models: A Formal Language Perspective · NeurIPS 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › language modeling
language model architecture |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | The Expressive Capacity of State Space Models: A Formal Language Perspective · NeurIPS 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
retrieval and copying tasks · 0.9mechanistic interpretability · 0.9fine-tuning · 0.9formal language analysis · 0.8empirical verification · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Born a Transformer - Always a Transformer? On the Effect of Pretraining on Architectural AbilitiesabstractTransformers have theoretical limitations in modeling certain sequence-to-sequence tasks, yet it remains largely unclear if these limitations play a role in large-scale pretrained LLMs, or whether LLMs might effectively overcome these constraints in practice due to the scale of both the models themselves and their pretraining data. We explore how these architectural constraints manifest after pretraining by studying a family of *retrieval* and *copying* tasks inspired by Liu et al. [2024a]. We use a recently proposed framework for studying length generalization [Huang et al., 2025] to provide guarantees for each of our settings. Empirically, we observe an *induction-versus-anti-induction asymmetry*, where pretrained models are better at retrieving tokens to the right (induction) rather than the left (anti-induction) of a query token. This asymmetry disappears upon targeted fine-tuning if length-generalization is guaranteed by theory. Mechanistic analysis reveals that this asymmetry is connected to the differences in the strength of induction versus anti-induction circuits within pretrained transformers. We validate our findings through practical experiments on real-world tasks demonstrating reliability risks. Our results highlight that pretraining selectively enhances certain transformer capabilities, but does not overcome fundamental length-generalization limits. Mayank Jobanputra, Yana Veitsman, Yash Raj Sarrof, Aleksandra Bakalova, Vera Demberg, Ellie Pavlick, Michael Hahn 0001 |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2024 | The Expressive Capacity of State Space Models: A Formal Language PerspectiveabstractRecently, recurrent models based on linear state space models (SSMs) have shown promising performance in language modeling (LM), competititve with transformers. However, there is little understanding of the in-principle abilities of such models, which could provide useful guidance to the search for better LM architectures. We present a comprehensive theoretical study of the capacity of such SSMs as it compares to that of transformers and traditional RNNs. We find that SSMs and transformers have overlapping but distinct strengths. In star-free state tracking, SSMs implement straightforward and exact solutions to problems that transformers struggle to represent exactly. They can also model bounded hierarchical structure with optimal memory even without simulating a stack. On the other hand, we identify a design choice in current SSMs that limits their expressive power. We discuss implications for SSM and LM research, and verify results empirically on a recent SSM, Mamba. Yash Raj Sarrof, Yana Veitsman, Michael Hahn 0001 |
NeurIPS | 2 |