Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Haozhe Lyu
dblp:348/9415
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 50% Question answering and dialogue systems · 50% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
foundation model evaluation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Benchmarking Foundation Models with Language-Model-as-an-Examiner · NeurIPS 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems
open-ended question answering |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Benchmarking Foundation Models with Language-Model-as-an-Examiner · NeurIPS 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
peer-examination · 0.7LLM-as-examiner · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Benchmarking Foundation Models with Language-Model-as-an-ExaminerabstractNumerous benchmarks have been established to assess the performance of foundation models on open-ended question answering, which serves as a comprehensive test of a model's ability to understand and generate language in a manner similar to humans.Most of these works focus on proposing new datasets, however, we see two main issues within previous benchmarking pipelines, namely testing leakage and evaluation automation. In this paper, we propose a novel benchmarking framework, Language-Model-as-an-Examiner, where the LM serves as a knowledgeable examiner that formulates questions based on its knowledge and evaluates responses in a reference-free manner. Our framework allows for effortless extensibility as various LMs can be adopted as the examiner, and the questions can be constantly updated given more diverse trigger topics. For a more comprehensive and equitable evaluation, we devise three strategies: (1) We instruct the LM examiner to generate questions across a multitude of domains to probe for a broad acquisition, and raise follow-up questions to engage in a more in-depth assessment. (2) Upon evaluation, the examiner combines both scoring and ranking measurements, providing a reliable result as it aligns closely with human annotations. (3) We additionally propose a decentralized Peer-examination method to address the biases in a single examiner. Our data and benchmarking results are available at: http://lmexam.xlore.cn. Yushi Bai, Jiahao Ying, Yixin Cao 0002, Xiaozhi Wang, Jifan Yu, Kaisheng Zeng, Yijia Xiao, Haozhe Lyu, Jiayin Zhang, Juan-Zi Li, Lei Hou 0001 |
NeurIPS | 10 |