Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ahmet Yavuz Uluslu
dblp:301/8197
· 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 |
Information extraction and text analysis · 77% Trustworthy machine learning · 23% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › text mining › authorship analysis
native language identification |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Robust Native Language Identification through Agentic Decomposition · EMNLP 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › spurious correlation
spurious cue robustness |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Robust Native Language Identification through Agentic Decomposition · EMNLP 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
prompting · 0.9large language model · 0.9agentic decomposition · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Robust Native Language Identification through Agentic DecompositionabstractLarge language models (LLMs) often achieve high performance in native language identification (NLI) benchmarks by leveraging superficial contextual clues such as names, locations, and cultural stereotypes, rather than the underlying linguistic patterns indicative of native language (L1) influence.To improve robustness, previous work has instructed LLMs to disregard such clues.In this work, we demonstrate that such a strategy is unreliable and model predictions can be easily altered by misleading hints.To address this problem, we introduce an agentic NLI pipeline inspired by forensic linguistics, where specialized agents accumulate and categorize diverse linguistic evidence before an independent final overall assessment.In this final assessment, a goal-aware coordinating agent synthesizes all evidence to make the NLI prediction.On two benchmark datasets, our approach significantly enhances NLI robustness against misleading contextual clues and performance consistency compared to standard prompting methods. 1 Ahmet Yavuz Uluslu, Tannon Kew, Tilia Ellendorff, Gerold Schneider, Rico Sennrich |
EMNLP | 1 |