EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Gabrielle Berrada
dblp:410/1290
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 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
1 paper |
Trustworthy machine learning · 33% Language models and text generation · 33% Efficient and distributed learning · 33% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › model validation
active testing |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Scaling Up Active Testing to Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
label-efficient evaluation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Scaling Up Active Testing to Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model evaluation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Scaling Up Active Testing to Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
in-context learning · 0.9bootstrap estimation · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Scaling Up Active Testing to Large Language ModelsabstractActive testing enables label-efficient evaluation of predictive models through careful data acquisition, but it can pose a significant computational cost. We identify cost-saving measures that enable active testing to be scaled up to large language models (LLMs). In particular we show that the surrogate model used to guide data acquisition can be constructed cheaply using in-context learning, does not require updating within an active-testing loop, and can be smaller than the target model. We even find we can make good data-acquisition decisions without making predictions with the target model. As a result we are able to achieve much more accurate evaluations of LLM performance relative to using randomly acquired data. We additionally introduce a bootstrap estimator of evaluation error, which we show to be a useful indicator of how well active testing is working within a single run. Gabrielle Berrada, Jannik Kossen, Freddie Bickford Smith, Muhammed Razzak, Yarin Gal, Tom Rainforth |
NeurIPS | 1 |