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

Menglin Xia

dblp:185/7640 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-author · 3 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
2 papers
Language models and text generation · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model evaluation › capability evaluation
long-context evaluation
0.912025
Minerva: A Programmable Memory Test Benchmark for Language Models · ICML 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
model routing
0.912025
BEST-Route: Adaptive LLM Routing with Test-Time Optimal Compute · ICML 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model inference
0.312025
BEST-Route: Adaptive LLM Routing with Test-Time Optimal Compute · ICML 2025

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

test-time compute scaling · 0.9response sampling · 0.9programmatic benchmark generation · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 On Evaluating LLMs' Capabilities as Functional Approximators: A Bayesian Evaluation Framework
abstract
Recent works have successfully applied Large Language Models (LLMs) to function modeling tasks. However, the reasons behind this success remain unclear. In this work, we propose a new evaluation framework to comprehensively assess LLMs’ function modeling abilities. By adopting a Bayesian perspective of function modeling, we discover that LLMs are relatively weak in understanding patterns in raw data, but excel at utilizing prior knowledge about the domain to develop a strong understanding of the underlying function. Our findings offer new insights about the strengths and limitations of LLMs in the context of function modeling.
Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui, Yanzhi Chen, Juyeon Heo, Menglin Xia, Adrian Weller
COLING4
2025 BEST-Route: Adaptive LLM Routing with Test-Time Optimal Compute
abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are powerful tools but are often expensive to deploy at scale. LLM query routing mitigates this by dynamically assigning queries to models of varying cost and quality to obtain a desired tradeoff. Prior query routing approaches generate only one response from the selected model and a single response from a small (inexpensive) model was often not good enough to beat a response from a large (expensive) model due to which they end up overusing the large model and missing out on potential cost savings. However, it is well known that for small models, generating multiple responses and selecting the best can enhance quality while remaining cheaper than a single large-model response. We leverage this idea to propose BEST-Route, a novel routing framework that chooses a model and the number of responses to sample from it based on query difficulty and the quality thresholds. Experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that our method reduces costs by up to 60% with less than 1% performance drop.
Dujian Ding, Ankur Mallick, Chi Wang 0001, Daniel Madrigal 0001, Mirian Hipolito Garcia, Menglin Xia, Laks V. S. Lakshmanan, Qingyun Wu, Victor Rühle
ICML7
2025 Minerva: A Programmable Memory Test Benchmark for Language Models
abstract
How effectively can LLM-based AI assistants utilize their memory (context) to perform various tasks? Traditional data benchmarks, which are often manually crafted, suffer from several limitations: they are static, susceptible to overfitting, difficult to interpret, and lack actionable insights–failing to pinpoint the specific capabilities a model lacks when it does not pass a test. In this paper, we present a framework for automatically generating a comprehensive set of tests to evaluate models’ abilities to use their memory effectively. Our framework extends the range of capability tests beyond the commonly explored (passkey, key-value, needle in the haystack) search, a dominant focus in the literature. Specifically, we evaluate models on atomic tasks such as searching, recalling, editing, matching, comparing information in context memory, performing basic operations when inputs are structured into distinct blocks, and maintaining state while operating on memory, simulating real-world data. Additionally, we design composite tests to investigate the models’ ability to perform more complex, integrated tasks. Our benchmark enables an interpretable, detailed assessment of memory capabilities of LLMs.
Menglin Xia, Victor Rühle, Saravan Rajmohan, Reza Shokri
ICML1