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

Daniil Ignatev

dblp:411/4762 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0006-0455-5224ORCID · reported

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
1 paper
Efficient and distributed learning · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 1, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › data selection
data pruning
0.912025
Disentangling the Roles of Representation and Selection in Data Pruning · ACL (1) 2025
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Human Label Variation in Implicit Discourse Relation Recognition
Frances Yung, Daniil Ignatev, Merel C. J. Scholman, Vera Demberg, Massimo Poesio
LREC2
2025 Disentangling the Roles of Representation and Selection in Data Pruning
abstract
Data pruning, selecting small but impactful subsets, offers a promising way to efficiently scale NLP model training. However, existing methods often involve many different design choices, which have not been systematically studied. This limits future developments. In this work, we decompose data pruning into two key components: the data representation and the selection algorithm, and we systematically analyze their influence on the selection of instances. Our theoretical and empirical results highlight the crucial role of representations: better representations, e.g., training gradients, generally lead to a better selection of instances, regardless of the chosen selection algorithm. Furthermore, different selection algorithms excel in different settings, and none consistently outperforms the others. Moreover, the selection algorithms do not always align with their intended objectives: for example, algorithms designed for the same objective can select drastically different instances, highlighting the need for careful evaluation.
Yupei Du, Yingjin Song, Hugh Mee Wong, Daniil Ignatev, Albert Gatt, Dong Nguyen 0002
ACL (1)4