Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Eric J. Bigelow
dblp:334/0602
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
4as first author
5since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 4 first-author · 5 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 4 · 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
3 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 62% Language models and text generation · 13% Representation and self-supervised learning · 13% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Forking Paths in Neural Text Generation · ICLR 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
in-context learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | In-Context Learning Dynamics with Random Binary Sequences · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Mechanistic Mode Connectivity · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
mechanistic interpretability |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Mechanistic Mode Connectivity · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › loss landscape
mode connectivity |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Mechanistic Mode Connectivity · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Mechanistic Mode Connectivity · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › spurious correlation
spurious feature reliance |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Mechanistic Mode Connectivity · ICML 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
statistical modeling · 0.9resampling · 0.9fine-tuning · 0.7differential geometry · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Language models assign responsibility based on actual rather than counterfactual contributions
Eric J. Bigelow, Tobias Gerstenberg, Tomer D. Ullman, Samuel Gershman |
CogSci | 2 |
| 2025 | Forking Paths in Neural Text GenerationabstractEstimating uncertainty in Large Language Models (LLMs) is important for properly evaluating LLMs, and ensuring safety for users. However, prior approaches to uncertainty estimation focus on the final answer in generated text, ignoring intermediate steps that might dramatically impact the outcome. We hypothesize that there exist key forking tokens, such that re-sampling the system at those specific tokens, but not others, leads to very different outcomes. To test this empirically, we develop a novel approach to representing uncertainty dynamics across individual tokens of text generation, and applying statistical models to test our hypothesis. Our approach is highly flexible: it can be applied to any dataset and any LLM, without fine tuning or accessing model weights. We use our method to analyze LLM responses on 7 different tasks across 4 domains, spanning a wide range of typical use cases. We find many examples of forking tokens, including surprising ones such as a space character instead of a colon, suggesting that LLMs are often just a single token away from saying something very different. Eric J. Bigelow, Ari Holtzman, Hidenori Tanaka, Tomer D. Ullman |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2024 | In-Context Learning Dynamics with Random Binary SequencesabstractLarge language models (LLMs) trained on huge text datasets demonstrate intriguing capabilities, achieving state-of-the-art performance on tasks they were not explicitly trained for. The precise nature of LLM capabilities is often mysterious, and different prompts can elicit different capabilities through in-context learning. We propose a framework that enables us to analyze in-context learning dynamics to understand latent concepts underlying LLMs’ behavioral patterns. This provides a more nuanced understanding than success-or-failure evaluation benchmarks, but does not require observing internal activations as a mechanistic interpretation of circuits would. Inspired by the cognitive science of human randomness perception, we use random binary sequences as context and study dynamics of in-context learning by manipulating properties of context data, such as sequence length. In the latest GPT-3.5+ models, we find emergent abilities to generate seemingly random numbers and learn basic formal languages, with striking in-context learning dynamics where model outputs transition sharply from seemingly random behaviors to deterministic repetition. Eric J. Bigelow, Ekdeep Singh Lubana, Robert P. Dick, Hidenori Tanaka, Tomer D. Ullman |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2023 | Mechanistic Mode ConnectivityabstractWe study neural network loss landscapes through the lens of mode connectivity, the observation that minimizers of neural networks retrieved via training on a dataset are connected via simple paths of low loss. Specifically, we ask the following question: are minimizers that rely on different mechanisms for making their predictions connected via simple paths of low loss? We provide a definition of mechanistic similarity as shared invariances to input transformations and demonstrate that lack of linear connectivity between two models implies they use dissimilar mechanisms for making their predictions. Relevant to practice, this result helps us demonstrate that naive fine-tuning on a downstream dataset can fail to alter a model’s mechanisms, e.g., fine-tuning can fail to eliminate a model’s reliance on spurious attributes. Our analysis also motivates a method for targeted alteration of a model’s mechanisms, named connectivity-based fine-tuning (CBFT), which we analyze using several synthetic datasets for the task of reducing a model’s reliance on spurious attributes. Ekdeep Singh Lubana, Eric J. Bigelow, Robert P. Dick, David Krueger 0001, Hidenori Tanaka |
ICML | 2 |
| 2022 | People's evaluation of programs that drive agents' behavior
Eric J. Bigelow, Tomer D. Ullman |
CogSci | 1 |
| 2017 | Tales of Two Cities: Using Social Media to Understand Idiosyncratic Lifestyles in Distinctive Metropolitan AreasabstractLifestyles are a valuable model for understanding individuals' physical and mental lives, comparing social groups, and making recommendations for improving people's lives. In this paper, we examine and compare lifestyle behaviors of people living in cities of different sizes, utilizing freely available social media data as a large-scale, low-cost alternative to traditional survey methods. We use the Greater New York City area as a representative for large cities, and the Greater Rochester area as a representative for smaller cities in the United States. We employed matrix factor analysis as an unsupervised method to extract salient mobility and workrest patterns for a large population of users within each metropolitan area. We discovered interesting human behavior patterns at both a larger scale and a finer granularity than is present in previous literature, some of which allow us to quantitatively compare the behaviors of individuals of living in big cities to those living in small cities. We believe that our social media-based approach to lifestyle analysis represents a powerful tool for social computing in the big data age. Tianran Hu, Eric J. Bigelow, Jiebo Luo 0001, Henry A. Kautz |
IEEE Trans. Big Data | 2 |
| 2016 | Inferring priors in compositional cognitive models
Eric J. Bigelow, Steve Piantadosi |
CogSci | 1 |