Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Barry Wang
dblp:320/5158
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
0as first author
4since 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 since 2021Security and privacy · 1 · 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.
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 67% Privacy and data protection · 33% | |
| Artificial intelligence
2 papers |
Question answering and dialogue systems · 36% Language models and text generation · 36% Information extraction and text analysis · 28% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers |
Human-AI interaction · 77% Collaborative and social computing · 23% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model evaluation
automatic evaluation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | IQA-EVAL: Automatic Evaluation of Human-Model Interactive Question Answering · NeurIPS 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems
interactive question answering |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | IQA-EVAL: Automatic Evaluation of Human-Model Interactive Question Answering · NeurIPS 2024 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › secure messaging
end-to-end encrypted messaging |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Private Hierarchical Governance for Encrypted Messaging · SP 2024 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › secure messaging › secure group messaging
messaging layer security |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Private Hierarchical Governance for Encrypted Messaging · SP 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › document analysis
document information extraction |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Automatic Error Analysis for Document-level Information Extraction · ACL (1) 2022 |
Collaborative and social computing › content moderation
community moderation |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Private Hierarchical Governance for Encrypted Messaging · SP 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
persona assignment · 1.5large language model · 1.5cryptographic protocol design · 1.5MLS extension · 1.5automatic error analysis · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Are Triggers Needed for Document-Level Event Extraction?abstractAbstract Most existing work on event extraction has focused on sentence-level texts and presumes the identification of a trigger-span—a word or phrase in the input that evokes the occurrence of an event of interest. Event arguments are then extracted with respect to the trigger. Indeed, triggers are treated as integral to, and trigger detection as an essential component of, event extraction. In this paper, we provide the first investigation of the role of triggers for the more difficult and much less studied task of document-level event extraction. We analyze their usefulness in multiple end-to-end and pipelined transformer-based event extraction models for three document-level event extraction datasets, measuring performance using triggers of varying quality (human-annotated, LLM-generated, keyword-based, and random). We find that whether or not systems benefit from explicitly extracting triggers depends both on dataset characteristics (i.e., the typical number of events per document) and task-specific information available during extraction (i.e., natural language event schemas). Perhaps surprisingly, we also observe that the mere existence of triggers in the input, even random ones, is important for prompt-based in-context learning approaches to the task. Shaden Shaar, Wayne Chen, Maitreyi Chatterjee, Barry Wang, Claire Cardie |
Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics | 4 |
| 2024 | IQA-EVAL: Automatic Evaluation of Human-Model Interactive Question AnsweringabstractTo evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) for question answering (QA), traditional methods typically focus on directly assessing the immediate responses generated by the models based on the given question and context. In the common use case of humans seeking AI assistant’s help in finding information, these non-interactive evaluations do not account for the dynamic nature of human-model conversations, and interaction-aware evaluations have shown that accurate models are not necessarily preferred by humans Lee et al. Recent works in human-computer interaction (HCI) have employed human evaluators to conduct interactions and evaluations, but they are often prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to scale. In this work, we introduce an automated evaluation framework IQA-EVAL to Interactive Question Answering Evaluations, more specifically, we introduce LLM-based Evaluation Agent (LEA) that can: (1) simulate human behaviors to generate interactions with IQA models; (2) automatically evaluate the generated interactions. Moreover, we propose assigning personas to LEAs to better simulate groups of real human evaluators. We show that: (1) our evaluation framework with GPT-4 (or Claude) as the backbone model achieves a high correlation with human evaluations on the IQA task; (2) assigning personas to LEA to better represent the crowd further significantly improves correlations. Finally, we use our automated metric to evaluate five recent LLMs with over 1000 questions from complex and ambiguous question answering tasks, which would cost $5k if evaluated by humans. Ruosen Li, Barry Wang, Xinya Du |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2024 | Private Hierarchical Governance for Encrypted MessagingabstractThe increasing harms caused by hate, harassment, and other forms of abuse online have motivated major platforms to explore hierarchical governance. The idea is to allow communities to have designated members take on moderation and leadership duties; meanwhile, members can still escalate issues to the platform. But these promising approaches have only been explored in plaintext settings where community content is public to the platform. It is unclear how one can realize hierarchical governance in the huge and increasing number of online communities that utilize end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) messaging for privacy.We propose private hierarchical governance systems. These should enable similar levels of community governance as in plaintext settings, while maintaining cryptographic privacy of content and governance actions not reported to the platform. We design the first such system, taking a layered approach that adds governance logic on top of an encrypted messaging protocol; we show how an extension to the message layer security (MLS) protocol suffices for achieving a rich set of governance policies. Our approach allows developers to rapidly prototype new governance features, taking inspiration from a plaintext system called PolicyKit. We build a prototype E2EE messaging system called MlsGov that supports content-based community and platform moderation, elections of community moderators, votes to remove abusive users, and more. Armin Namavari, Barry Wang, Sanketh Menda, Ben Nassi, Nirvan Tyagi, James Grimmelmann, Amy X. Zhang, Thomas Ristenpart |
SP | 2 |
| 2022 | Automatic Error Analysis for Document-level Information ExtractionabstractAliva Das, Xinya Du, Barry Wang, Kejian Shi, Jiayuan Gu, Thomas Porter, Claire Cardie. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2022. Aliva Das, Xinya Du, Barry Wang, Kejian Shi, Jiayuan Gu, Thomas Porter, Claire Cardie |
ACL (1) | 3 |