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

Stefan Hegselmann

dblp:184/8466 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0002-2145-3258ORCID · corroborated

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Theory of computation · 1

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
Information extraction and text analysis · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Medical and health informatics · 50% Bioinformatics and computational biology · 50%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › text mining › biomedical text mining
clinical information extraction
0.612022
Large language models are few-shot clinical information extractors · EMNLP 2022
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › low-resource NLP › low-resource information extraction
few-shot information extraction
0.612022
Large language models are few-shot clinical information extractors · EMNLP 2022
Medical and health informatics
clinical text processing
0.612022
Large language models are few-shot clinical information extractors · EMNLP 2022
Bioinformatics and computational biology › biomedical text mining
relation extraction
0.612022
Large language models are few-shot clinical information extractors · EMNLP 2022

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

large language model · 1.1few-shot prompting · 1.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 TabLLM: Few-shot Classification of Tabular Data with Large Language Models
abstract
We study the application of large language models to zero-shot and few-shot classification of tabular data. We prompt the large language model with a serialization of the tabular data to a natural-language string, together with a short description of the classification problem. In the few-shot setting, we fine-tune the large language model using some labeled examples. We evaluate several serialization methods including templates, table-to-text models, and large language models. Despite its simplicity, we find that this technique outperforms prior deep-learning-based tabular classification methods on several benchmark datasets. In most cases, even zero-shot classification obtains non-trivial performance, illustrating the method’s ability to exploit prior knowledge encoded in large language models. Unlike many deep learning methods for tabular datasets, this approach is also competitive with strong traditional baselines like gradient-boosted trees, especially in the very-few-shot setting.
Stefan Hegselmann, Alejandro Buendia, Hunter Lang, Monica Agrawal, Xiaoyi Jiang 0001, David A. Sontag
AISTATS1
2022 Large language models are few-shot clinical information extractors
abstract
A long-running goal of the clinical NLP community is the extraction of important variables trapped in clinical notes.However, roadblocks have included dataset shift from the general domain and a lack of public clinical corpora and annotations.In this work, we show that large language models, such as InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022), perform well at zero-and few-shot information extraction from clinical text despite not being trained specifically for the clinical domain.Whereas text classification and generation performance have already been studied extensively in such models, here we additionally demonstrate how to leverage them to tackle a diverse set of NLP tasks which require more structured outputs, including span identification, token-level sequence classification, and relation extraction.Further, due to the dearth of available data to evaluate these systems, we introduce new datasets for benchmarking fewshot clinical information extraction based on a manual re-annotation of the CASI dataset (Moon et al., 2014) for new tasks 1 .On the clinical extraction tasks we studied, the GPT-3 systems significantly outperform existing zeroand few-shot baselines.
Monica Agrawal, Stefan Hegselmann, Hunter Lang, David A. Sontag
EMNLP2
2016 Counting in Team Semantics
abstract
We explore several counting constructs for logics with team semantics. Counting is an important task in numerous applications, but with a somewhat delicate relationship to logic. Team semantics on the other side is the mathematical basis of modern logics of dependence and independence, in which formulae are evaluated not for a single assignment of values to variables, but for a set of such assignments. It is therefore interesting to ask what kind of counting constructs are adequate in this context, and how such constructs influence the expressive power, and the model-theoretic and algorithmic properties of logics with team semantics. Due to the second-order features of team semantics there is a rich variety of potential counting constructs. Here we study variations of two main ideas: forking atoms and counting quantifiers. Forking counts how many different values for a tuple w occur in assignments with coinciding values for v. We call this the forking degree of bar v with respect to bar w. Forking is powerful enough to capture many of the previously studied atomic dependency properties. In particular we exhibit logics with forking atoms that have, respectively, precisely the power of dependence logic and independence logic. Our second approach uses counting quantifiers E^{geq mu} of a similar kind as used in logics with Tarski semantics. The difference is that these quantifiers are now applied to teams of assignments that may give different values to mu. We show that, on finite structures, there is an intimate connection between inclusion logic with counting quantifiers and FPC, fixed-point logic with counting, which is a logic of fundamental importance for descriptive complexity theory. For sentences, the two logics have the same expressive power. Our analysis is based on a new variant of model-checking games, called threshold safety games, on a trap condition for such games, and on game interpretations.
Erich Grädel, Stefan Hegselmann
CSL2