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

Benjamin Lipkin

dblp:346/0247 · also Ben Lipkin · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
1as first author
5since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0001-7465-5315ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 1 first-author · 5 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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
3 papers
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 45% Language models and text generation · 38% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 17%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computing education · 50% Medical and health informatics · 50%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
probabilistic inference
0.912025
Syntactic and Semantic Control of Large Language Models via Sequential Monte Carlo · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods
sequential monte carlo
0.912025
Syntactic and Semantic Control of Large Language Models via Sequential Monte Carlo · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
text generation
0.912025
Syntactic and Semantic Control of Large Language Models via Sequential Monte Carlo · ICLR 2025
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
logic-based reasoning
0.712023
LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers · EMNLP 2023
Automated reasoning and model checking › automated theorem proving
first-order theorem proving
0.712023
LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers · EMNLP 2023
Medical and health informatics
neuroimaging
0.612022
Convergent Representations of Computer Programs in Human and Artificial Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2022
Computing education
program comprehension
0.612022
Convergent Representations of Computer Programs in Human and Artificial Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2022
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
prompting
0.212023
LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers · EMNLP 2023

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

semantic parsing · 1.3neurosymbolic programming · 1.3chain-of-thought prompting · 1.3representational alignment · 1.1fMRI probing · 1.1sequential monte carlo · 0.9probabilistic conditioning · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Syntactic and Semantic Control of Large Language Models via Sequential Monte Carlo
abstract
A wide range of LM applications require generating text that conforms to syntactic or semantic constraints. Imposing such constraints can be naturally framed as _probabilistic conditioning_, but exact generation from the resulting distribution—which can differ substantially from the LM’s base distribution—is generally intractable. In this work, we develop an architecture for controlled LM generation based on sequential Monte Carlo (SMC). Our SMC framework allows us to flexibly incorporate domain- and problem-specific constraints at inference time, and efficiently reallocate computational resources in light of new information during the course of generation. By comparing to a number of alternatives and ablations on four challenging domains---Python code generation for data science, text-to-SQL, goal inference, and molecule synthesis—we demonstrate that, with little overhead, our approach allows small open-source language models to outperform models over 8$\times$ larger, as well as closed-source, fine-tuned ones. In support of the probabilistic perspective, we show that these performance improvements are driven by better approximation to the posterior distribution. [Our system](https://github.com/probcomp/genlm-control) builds on the framework of Lew et al. (2023) and integrates with its _language model probabilistic programming language_, giving users a simple, programmable way to apply SMC to a broad variety of controlled generation problems.
João Loula, Benjamin LeBrun, Benjamin Lipkin, Clemente Pasti, Gabriel Grand, Tianyu Liu 0004, Yahya Emara, Marjorie Freedman, Jason Eisner, Ryan Cotterell, Vikash Mansinghka 0001, Alexander K. Lew, Tim Vieira, Timothy J. O'Donnell
ICLR4
2025 Elements of World Knowledge (EWoK): A Cognition-Inspired Framework for Evaluating Basic World Knowledge in Language Models
Anna A. Ivanova, Aalok Sathe, Benjamin Lipkin, Unnathi U. Kumar, Setayesh Radkani, Thomas Hikaru Clark, Carina Kauf, Jennifer Hu 0001, R. T. Pramod, Gabriel Grand, Vivian C. Paulun, Maria Ryskina, Ekin Akyürek, Ethan Wilcox, Nafisa Rashid, Leshem Choshen, Roger Levy, Evelina Fedorenko, Josh Tenenbaum, Jacob Andreas
Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics3
2023 Evaluating statistical language models as pragmatic reasoners
Benjamin Lipkin, Lionel Wong, Gabriel Grand, Josh Tenenbaum
CogSci1
2023 LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers
abstract
Logical reasoning, i.e., deductively inferring the truth value of a conclusion from a set of premises, is an important task for artificial intelligence with wide potential impacts on science, mathematics, and society.While many prompting-based strategies have been proposed to enable Large Language Models (LLMs) to do such reasoning more effectively, they still appear unsatisfactory, often failing in subtle and unpredictable ways.In this work, we investigate the validity of instead reformulating such tasks as modular neurosymbolic programming, which we call LINC: Logical Inference via Neurosymbolic Computation.In LINC, the LLM acts as a semantic parser, translating premises and conclusions from natural language to expressions in first-order logic.These expressions are then offloaded to an external theorem prover, which symbolically performs deductive inference.Leveraging this approach, we observe significant performance gains on FOLIO and a balanced subset of ProofWriter for three different models in nearly all experimental conditions we evaluate.On ProofWriter, augmenting the comparatively small open-source StarCoder+ (15.5B parameters) with LINC even outperforms GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting by an absolute 38% and 10%, respectively.When used with GPT-4, LINC scores 26% higher than CoT on ProofWriter while performing comparatively on FOLIO.Further analysis reveals that although both methods on average succeed roughly equally often on this dataset, they exhibit distinct and complementary failure modes.We thus provide promising evidence for how logical reasoning over natural language can be tackled through jointly leveraging LLMs alongside symbolic provers.All corresponding code is publicly available.
Theo X. Olausson, Alex Gu, Benjamin Lipkin, Cedegao E. Zhang, Armando Solar-Lezama, Josh Tenenbaum, Roger Levy
EMNLP3
2022 Convergent Representations of Computer Programs in Human and Artificial Neural Networks
abstract
What aspects of computer programs are represented by the human brain during comprehension? We leverage brain recordings derived from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of programmers comprehending Python code to evaluate the properties and code-related information encoded in the neural signal. We first evaluate a selection of static and dynamic code properties, such as abstract syntax tree (AST)-related and runtime-related metrics. Then, to learn whether brain representations encode fine-grained information about computer programs, we train a probe to align brain recordings with representations learned by a suite of ML models. We find that both the Multiple Demand and Language systems--brain systems which are responsible for very different cognitive tasks, encode specific code properties and uniquely align with machine learned representations of code. These findings suggest at least two distinct neural mechanisms mediating computer program comprehension and evaluation, prompting the design of code model objectives that go beyond static language modeling.We make all the corresponding code, data, and analysis publicly available at https://github.com/ALFA-group/code-representations-ml-brain
Shashank Srikant, Benjamin Lipkin, Anna A. Ivanova, Evelina Fedorenko, Una-May O'Reilly
NeurIPS2