Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ting-Yun Chang
dblp:176/1912
· DBLP profile ↗
9ranked-venue papers
8as first author
6since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0003-2198-1170ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 8 · 7 first-author · 5 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author
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 |
Efficient and distributed learning · 28% Learning paradigms · 24% Language models and text generation · 18% |
Topics — the 14 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
in-context learning |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | When Parts Are Greater Than Sums: Individual LLM Components Can Outperform Full Models · EMNLP 2024 Data Curation Alone Can Stabilize In-context Learning · ACL (1) 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Why Do Some Inputs Break Low-Bit LLM Quantization? · EMNLP 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression › quantization
low-bit quantization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Why Do Some Inputs Break Low-Bit LLM Quantization? · EMNLP 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
model compression |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Why Do Some Inputs Break Low-Bit LLM Quantization? · EMNLP 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model quantization
quantization error analysis |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Why Do Some Inputs Break Low-Bit LLM Quantization? · EMNLP 2025 |
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection › visual classifier training
training sample selection |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Data Curation Alone Can Stabilize In-context Learning · ACL (1) 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › continual learning
catastrophic forgetting |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | CLiMB: A Continual Learning Benchmark for Vision-and-Language Tasks · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
continual learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | CLiMB: A Continual Learning Benchmark for Vision-and-Language Tasks · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › lifelong learning
continual learning benchmark |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | CLiMB: A Continual Learning Benchmark for Vision-and-Language Tasks · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › continual learning
multimodal continual learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | CLiMB: A Continual Learning Benchmark for Vision-and-Language Tasks · NeurIPS 2022 |
Computer vision › Vision and language
vision-language model |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | CLiMB: A Continual Learning Benchmark for Vision-and-Language Tasks · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › word representation › word embedding
word sense representation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | What Does This Word Mean? Explaining Contextualized Embeddings with Natural Language Definition · EMNLP/IJCNLP (1) 2019 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Why Do Some Inputs Break Low-Bit LLM Quantization? · EMNLP 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › transformer
vision transformer |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | CLiMB: A Continual Learning Benchmark for Vision-and-Language Tasks · NeurIPS 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
early exiting · 0.9activation patching · 0.9LLM localization · 0.9activation reweighting · 0.8linear regression · 0.7data curation · 0.7continual learning algorithms · 0.6natural language definition generation · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Why Do Some Inputs Break Low-Bit LLM Quantization?abstractLow-bit weight-only quantization significantly reduces the memory footprint of large language models (LLMs), but disproportionately affects certain examples.We analyze diverse 3-4 bit methods on LLMs ranging from 7B-70B in size and find that the quantization errors of 50 pairs of methods are strongly correlated (avg.ρ = 0.82) on FineWeb examples.Moreover, the residual stream magnitudes of full-precision models are indicative of future quantization errors.We further establish a hypothesis that relates the residual stream magnitudes to error amplification and accumulation over layers.Using LLM localization techniques, early exiting, and activation patching, we show that examples with large errors rely on precise residual activations in the later layers, and that the outputs of MLP gates play a crucial role in maintaining the perplexity.Our work reveals why certain examples result in large quantization errors and which model components are most critical for performance preservation. Ting-Yun Chang, Muru Zhang, Jesse Thomason, Robin Jia |
EMNLP | 1 |
| 2024 | When Parts Are Greater Than Sums: Individual LLM Components Can Outperform Full ModelsabstractThis paper studies in-context learning by decomposing the output of large language models into the individual contributions of attention heads and MLPs (components).We observe curious components: good-performing ones that individually do well on a classification task, even when the full model performs poorly; bad-performing ones that do much worse than chance; and label-biased components that always predict the same label.We find that component accuracies are well-correlated across different demonstration sets and perturbations of prompt templates.Based on our findings, we propose component reweighting, which learns to linearly re-scale the component activations from a few labeled examples.Given 24 labeled examples, our method improves by an average of 6.0% accuracy points over 24-shot ICL across 8 tasks on Llama-2-7B.Overall, this paper both enriches our understanding of ICL and provides a practical method for improvement by examining model internals.Template 1 {text}\nIs this a piece of news regarding World, Sports, Business, or Technology?Template 2 {text} Is this a piece of news regarding World, Sports, Business, or Technology?Correlation = 0.81 Ting-Yun Chang, Jesse Thomason, Robin Jia |
EMNLP | 1 |
| 2024 | Do Localization Methods Actually Localize Memorized Data in LLMs? A Tale of Two BenchmarksabstractTing-Yun Chang, Jesse Thomason, Robin Jia. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024. Ting-Yun Chang, Jesse Thomason, Robin Jia |
NAACL-HLT | 1 |
| 2023 | Data Curation Alone Can Stabilize In-context LearningabstractIn-context learning (ICL) enables large language models (LLMs) to perform new tasks by prompting them with a sequence of training examples.However, it is known that ICL is very sensitive to the choice of training examples: randomly sampling examples from a training set leads to high variance in performance.In this paper, we show that carefully curating a subset of training data greatly stabilizes ICL performance without any other changes to the ICL algorithm (e.g., prompt retrieval or calibration).We introduce two methods to choose training subsets-both score training examples individually, then select the highest-scoring ones.CONDACC scores a training example by its average dev-set ICL accuracy when combined with random training examples, while DATAMODELS learns linear regressors that estimate how the presence of each training example influences LLM outputs.Across five tasks and two LLMs, sampling from stable subsets selected by CONDACC and DATAMODELS improves average accuracy over sampling from the entire training set by 7.7% and 6.3%, respectively.Surprisingly, the stable subset examples are not especially diverse in content or low in perplexity, in contrast with other work suggesting that diversity and perplexity are important when prompting LLMs. Ting-Yun Chang, Robin Jia |
ACL (1) | 1 |
| 2022 | CLiMB: A Continual Learning Benchmark for Vision-and-Language TasksabstractCurrent state-of-the-art vision-and-language models are evaluated on tasks either individually or in a multi-task setting, overlooking the challenges of continually learning (CL) tasks as they arrive. Existing CL benchmarks have facilitated research on task adaptation and mitigating "catastrophic forgetting", but are limited to vision-only and language-only tasks. We present CLiMB, a benchmark to study the challenge of learning multimodal tasks in a CL setting, and to systematically evaluate how upstream continual learning can rapidly generalize to new multimodal and unimodal tasks. CLiMB includes implementations of several CL algorithms and a modified Vision-Language Transformer (ViLT) model that can be deployed on both multimodal and unimodal tasks. We find that common CL methods can help mitigate forgetting during multimodal task learning, but do not enable cross-task knowledge transfer. We envision that CLiMB will facilitate research on a new class of CL algorithms for this challenging multimodal setting. Tejas Srinivasan, Ting-Yun Chang, Leticia Leonor Pinto Alva, Georgios Chochlakis, Jesse Thomason |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2021 | Go Beyond Plain Fine-Tuning: Improving Pretrained Models for Social CommonsenseabstractPretrained language models have demonstrated outstanding performance in many NLP tasks recently. However, their social intelligence, which requires commonsense reasoning about the current situation and mental states of others, is still developing. Towards improving language models' social intelligence, in this study we focus on the Social IQA dataset, a task requiring social and emotional commonsense reasoning. Building on top of the pretrained RoBERTa and GPT2 models, we propose several architecture variations and extensions, as well as leveraging external commonsense corpora, to optimize the model for Social IQA. Our proposed system achieves competitive results as those top-ranking models on the leaderboard. This work demonstrates the strengths of pretrained language models, and provides viable ways to improve their performance for a particular task. Ting-Yun Chang, Yang Liu 0004, Karthik Gopalakrishnan 0001, Behnam Hedayatnia, Dilek Hakkani-Tür |
SLT | 1 |
| 2020 | TinyGAN: Distilling BigGAN for Conditional Image Generation
Ting-Yun Chang, Chi-Jen Lu |
ACCV (4) | 1 |
| 2019 | What Does This Word Mean? Explaining Contextualized Embeddings with Natural Language DefinitionabstractTing-Yun Chang, Yun-Nung Chen. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). 2019. Ting-Yun Chang, Yun-Nung Chen |
EMNLP/IJCNLP (1) | 1 |
| 2014 | Median thinking style predicts the individual differences in processing capacity
Ting-Yun Chang, Cheng-Ta Yang |
CogSci | 1 |