Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Harvey Yiyun Fu
dblp:348/5913
· 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 |
Language models and text generation · 87% Information extraction and text analysis · 13% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, 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 |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Absence Bench: Language Models Can't See What's Missing · NeurIPS 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › language modeling › long-context language modeling › context utilization › long-context modeling
long-context language model |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Absence Bench: Language Models Can't See What's Missing · NeurIPS 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › document understanding
document comparison |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Absence Bench: Language Models Can't See What's Missing · NeurIPS 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
attention analysis · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Absence Bench: Language Models Can't See What's MissingabstractLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of processing long inputs and locating specific information within them, as evidenced by their performance on the Needle in a Haystack (NIAH) test. However, while models excel at recalling surprising information, they still struggle to identify clearly omitted information. We introduce AbsenceBench to assesses LLMs' capacity to detect missing information across three domains: numerical sequences, poetry, and GitHub pull requests. AbsenceBench asks models to identify which pieces of a document were deliberately removed, given access to both the original and edited contexts. Despite the apparent straightforwardness of these tasks, our experiments reveal that even state-of-the-art models like Claude-3.7-Sonnet achieve only 69.6% F1-score with a modest average context length of 5K tokens. Our analysis suggests this poor performance stems from a fundamental limitation: Transformer attention mechanisms cannot easily attend to "gaps" in documents since these absences don't correspond to any specific keys that can be attended to. Overall, our results and analysis provide a case study of the close proximity of tasks where models are already superhuman (NIAH) and tasks where models breakdown unexpectedly (AbsenceBench). Harvey Yiyun Fu, Aryan Shrivastava, Jared Moore, Peter West, Chenhao Tan, Ari Holtzman |
NeurIPS | 1 |