Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Yujie He 0003
dblp:140/9459-3
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0001-8261-5399ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 3 · 2 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1
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
5 papers |
Question answering and dialogue systems · 39% Trustworthy machine learning · 16% Language models and text generation · 14% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers |
Data mining · 70% Machine learning and data management · 30% |
Topics — the 12 heaviest of 14, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.8 | 2 | 2022 | Right for the Right Reason: Evidence Extraction for Trustworthy Tabular Reasoning · ACL (1) 2022 Optimal Action Extraction for Random Forests and Boosted Trees · KDD 2015 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › evaluation of language models
benchmark construction |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | TempTabQA: Temporal Question Answering for Semi-Structured Tables · EMNLP 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems
table question answering |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | TempTabQA: Temporal Question Answering for Semi-Structured Tables · EMNLP 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems › reasoning-based question answering
temporal question answering |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | TempTabQA: Temporal Question Answering for Semi-Structured Tables · EMNLP 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
evidence extraction |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Right for the Right Reason: Evidence Extraction for Trustworthy Tabular Reasoning · ACL (1) 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems › table question answering
table reasoning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Right for the Right Reason: Evidence Extraction for Trustworthy Tabular Reasoning · ACL (1) 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › density estimation
kernel density estimation |
0.3 | 2 | 2015 | Nonlinear Metric Learning with Kernel Density Estimation · IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2015 Kernel Density Metric Learning · ICDM 2013 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning
metric learning |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Nonlinear Metric Learning with Kernel Density Estimation · IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2015 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › metric learning
nonlinear metric learning |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Nonlinear Metric Learning with Kernel Density Estimation · IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2015 |
Data mining › knowledge discovery process
actionable knowledge discovery |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Optimal Action Extraction for Random Forests and Boosted Trees · KDD 2015 |
Data mining › density estimation
kernel density estimation |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Kernel Density Metric Learning · ICDM 2013 |
Machine learning and data management
metric learning |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Kernel Density Metric Learning · ICDM 2013 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
temporal reasoning evaluation · 0.7large language model · 0.7large language model prompting · 0.6mahalanobis distance · 0.5kernel density estimation · 0.5random forest · 0.4gradient boosted trees · 0.4adaboost · 0.4neighborhood component analysis · 0.2large margin nearest neighbor · 0.2kNN · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | TempTabQA: Temporal Question Answering for Semi-Structured TablesabstractSemi-structured data, such as Infobox tables, often include temporal information about entities, either implicitly or explicitly.Can current NLP systems reason about such information in semi-structured tables?To tackle this question, we introduce the task of temporal question answering on semi-structured tables.We present a dataset, TEMPTABQA, which comprises 11,454 question-answer pairs extracted from 1,208 Wikipedia Infobox tables spanning more than 90 distinct domains.Using this dataset, we evaluate several state-ofthe-art models for temporal reasoning.We observe that even the top-performing LLMs lag behind human performance by more than 13.5 F1 points.Given these results, our dataset has the potential to serve as a challenging benchmark to improve the temporal reasoning capabilities of NLP models. Vivek Gupta 0001, Pranshu Kandoi, Mahek Bhavesh Vora, Shuo Zhang 0006, Yujie He 0003, Ridho Reinanda, Vivek Srikumar |
EMNLP | 5 |
| 2022 | Right for the Right Reason: Evidence Extraction for Trustworthy Tabular ReasoningabstractVivek Gupta, Shuo Zhang, Alakananda Vempala, Yujie He, Temma Choji, Vivek Srikumar. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2022. Vivek Gupta 0001, Shuo Zhang 0006, Alakananda Vempala, Yujie He 0003, Temma Choji, Vivek Srikumar |
ACL (1) | 4 |
| 2015 | Mortality Prediction in ICUs Using A Novel Time-Slicing Cox Regression Method
Kevin M. Heard, Marin Kollef, Thomas C. Bailey, Zhicheng Cui, Yujie He 0003, Chenyang Lu 0001, Yixin Chen 0001 |
AMIA | 7 |
| 2015 | Optimal Action Extraction for Random Forests and Boosted TreesabstractAdditive tree models (ATMs) are widely used for data mining and machine learning. Important examples of ATMs include random forest, adaboost (with decision trees as weak learners), and gradient boosted trees, and they are often referred to as the best off-the-shelf classifiers. Though capable of attaining high accuracy, ATMs are not well interpretable in the sense that they do not provide actionable knowledge for a given instance. This greatly limits the potential of ATMs on many applications such as medical prediction and business intelligence, where practitioners need suggestions on actions that can lead to desirable outcomes with minimum costs. Zhicheng Cui, Yujie He 0003, Yixin Chen 0001 |
KDD | 3 |
| 2015 | Nonlinear Metric Learning with Kernel Density EstimationabstractMetric learning, the task of learning a good distance metric, is a key problem in machine learning with ample applications. This paper introduces a novel framework for nonlinear metric learning, called kernel density metric learning (KDML), which is easy to use and provides nonlinear, probability-based distance measures. KDML constructs a direct nonlinear mapping from the original input space into a feature space based on kernel density estimation. The nonlinear mapping in KDML embodies established distance measures between probability density functions, and leads to accurate classification on datasets for which existing linear metric learning methods would fail. It addresses the severe challenge to distance-based classifiers when features are from heterogeneous domains and, as a result, the Euclidean or Mahalanobis distance between original feature vectors is not meaningful. We also propose two ways to determine the kernel bandwidths, including an adaptive local scaling approach and an integrated optimization algorithm that learns the Mahalanobis matrix and kernel bandwidths together. KDML is a general framework that can be combined with any existing metric learning algorithm. As concrete examples, we combine KDML with two leading metric learning algorithms, large margin nearest neighbors (LMNN) and neighborhood component analysis (NCA). KDML can naturally handle not only numerical features, but also categorical ones, which is rarely found in previous metric learning algorithms. Extensive experimental results on various datasets show that KDML significantly improves existing metric learning algorithms in terms of classification accuracy. Yujie He 0003, Yixin Chen 0001 |
IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. | 1 |
| 2013 | Kernel Density Metric LearningabstractThis paper introduces a supervised metric learning algorithm, called kernel density metric learning (KDML), which is easy to use and provides nonlinear, probability-based distance measures. KDML constructs a direct nonlinear mapping from the original input space into a feature space based on kernel density estimation. The nonlinear mapping in KDML embodies established distance measures between probability density functions, and leads to correct classification on datasets for which linear metric learning methods would fail. It addresses the severe challenge to kNN when features are from heterogeneous domains and, as a result, the Euclidean or Mahalanobis distance between original feature vectors is not meaningful. Existing metric learning algorithms can then be applied to the KDML features. We also propose an integrated optimization algorithm that learns not only the Mahalanobis matrix but also kernel bandwidths, the only hyper-parameters in the nonlinear mapping. KDML can naturally handle not only numerical features, but also categorical ones, which is rarely found in previous metric learning algorithms. Extensive experimental results on various datasets show that KDML significantly improves existing metric learning algorithms in terms of kNN classification accuracy. Yujie He 0003, Yixin Chen 0001 |
ICDM | 1 |