Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Yash Kumar Lal
dblp:207/8069
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0002-7632-0428ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 2 first-author · 3 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 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
3 papers |
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 48% Efficient and distributed learning · 23% Question answering and dialogue systems · 21% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Web and social media mining · 100% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Image and video processing · 100% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
commonsense reasoning |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | CaT-Bench: Benchmarking Language Model Understanding of Causal and Temporal Dependencies in Plans · EMNLP 2024 Using Commonsense Knowledge to Answer Why-Questions · EMNLP 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems › reasoning-based question answering
why-question answering |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Using Commonsense Knowledge to Answer Why-Questions · EMNLP 2022 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
energy-efficient learning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | IrEne: Interpretable Energy Prediction for Transformers · ACL/IJCNLP (1) 2021 |
Web and social media mining › misinformation detection
clickbait detection |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Identifying Clickbait: A Multi-Strategy Approach Using Neural Networks · SIGIR 2018 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | CaT-Bench: Benchmarking Language Model Understanding of Causal and Temporal Dependencies in Plans · EMNLP 2024 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model inference
transformer inference |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | IrEne: Interpretable Energy Prediction for Transformers · ACL/IJCNLP (1) 2021 |
Image and video processing › image representation
image embedding |
0.1 | 1 | 2018 | Identifying Clickbait: A Multi-Strategy Approach Using Neural Networks · SIGIR 2018 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
few-shot prompting · 0.8chain-of-thought prompting · 0.8siamese network · 0.7convolutional neural network · 0.7bidirectional LSTM · 0.7attention mechanism · 0.7commonsense knowledge base · 0.6interpretable modeling · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | CaT-Bench: Benchmarking Language Model Understanding of Causal and Temporal Dependencies in PlansabstractUnderstanding the abilities of LLMs to reason about natural language plans, such as instructional text and recipes, is critical to reliably using them in decision-making systems.A fundamental aspect of plans is the temporal order in which their steps need to be executed, which reflects the underlying causal dependencies between them.We introduce CAT-BENCH, a benchmark of Step Order Prediction questions, which test whether a step must necessarily occur before or after another in cooking recipe plans.We use this to evaluate how well frontier LLMs understand causal and temporal dependencies.We find that SOTA LLMs are underwhelming (best zero-shot is only 0.59 in F1), and are biased towards predicting dependence more often, perhaps relying on temporal order of steps as a heuristic.While prompting for explanations and using few-shot examples improve performance, the best F1 result is only 0.73.Further, human evaluation of explanations along with answer correctness show that, on average, humans do not agree with model reasoning.Surprisingly, we also find that explaining after answering leads to better performance than normal chain-of-thought prompting, and LLM answers are not consistent across questions about the same step pairs.Overall, results show that LLMs' ability to detect dependence between steps has significant room for improvement. * Equal ContributionAlmond Flour Chocolate Cake … Step 6: Stir in ground almonds.Step 7: Add half flour and half milk.Step 8: Use wooden spoon to stir.… Step 12: Whip cream till stiff peaks … Q: Must Step 6 happen before Step 8? Questions about dependent steps Q: Must Step 7 happen after Step 6? Questions about non-dependent steps A: Yes, all ingredients have to be in bowl before stirring A: No, almonds can be added after flour and milk Parallel Steps Preconditions CAT-Bench Dependent Steps Yash Kumar Lal, Vanya Cohen, Nathanael Chambers, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Raymond J. Mooney |
EMNLP | 1 |
| 2022 | Using Commonsense Knowledge to Answer Why-QuestionsabstractYash Kumar Lal, Niket Tandon, Tanvi Aggarwal, Horace Liu, Nathanael Chambers, Raymond Mooney, Niranjan Balasubramanian. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2022. Yash Kumar Lal, Niket Tandon, Tanvi Aggarwal, Horace Liu, Nathanael Chambers, Raymond J. Mooney, Niranjan Balasubramanian |
EMNLP | 1 |
| 2021 | IrEne: Interpretable Energy Prediction for TransformersabstractQingqing Cao, Yash Kumar Lal, Harsh Trivedi, Aruna Balasubramanian, Niranjan Balasubramanian. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2021. Yash Kumar Lal, Harsh Trivedi, Aruna Balasubramanian, Niranjan Balasubramanian |
ACL/IJCNLP (1) | 2 |
| 2018 | Identifying Clickbait: A Multi-Strategy Approach Using Neural NetworksabstractOnline media outlets, in a bid to expand their reach and subsequently increase revenue through ad monetisation, have begun adopting clickbait techniques to lure readers to click on articles. The article fails to fulfill the promise made by the headline. Traditional methods for clickbait detection have relied heavily on feature engineering which, in turn, is dependent on the dataset it is built for. The application of neural networks for this task has only been explored partially. We propose a novel approach considering all information found in a social media post. We train a bidirectional LSTM with an attention mechanism to learn the extent to which a word contributes to the post's clickbait score in a differential manner. We also employ a Siamese net to capture the similarity between source and target information. Information gleaned from images has not been considered in previous approaches. We learn image embeddings from large amounts of data using Convolutional Neural Networks to add another layer of complexity to our model. Finally, we concatenate the outputs from the three separate components, serving it as input to a fully connected layer. We conduct experiments over a test corpus of 19538 social media posts, attaining an F1 score of 65.37% on the dataset bettering the previous state-of-the-art, as well as other proposed approaches, feature engineering or otherwise. Vaibhav Kumar, Dhruv Khattar, Siddhartha Gairola, Yash Kumar Lal, Vasudeva Varma |
SIGIR | 4 |