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

Shiva Upadhye

dblp:278/8495 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
3as 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 · 3 · 3 first-author · 2 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2 · 2 first-author · 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
Language models and text generation · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › natural language understanding
discourse modeling
0.412020
Predicting Reference: What do Language Models Learn about Discourse Models? · EMNLP (1) 2020

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

psycholinguistic analysis · 0.4probing · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Examining Future Context Predictability Effects in Word-form Variation and Word Choice
Shiva Upadhye, Richard Futrell
CogSci1
2023 Typing time PWI: A scalable paradigm for studying lexical production
Shiva Upadhye, Richard Futrell
CogSci1
2020 Predicting Reference: What do Language Models Learn about Discourse Models?
abstract
Whereas there is a growing literature that probes neural language models to assess the degree to which they have latently acquired grammatical knowledge, little if any research has investigated their acquisition of discourse modeling ability.We address this question by drawing on a rich psycholinguistic literature that has established how different contexts affect referential biases concerning who is likely to be referred to next.The results reveal that, for the most part, the prediction behavior of neural language models does not resemble that of human language users.
Shiva Upadhye, Leon Bergen, Andrew Kehler
EMNLP (1)1