Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Juyeon Heo
dblp:236/4297
· DBLP profile ↗
10ranked-venue papers
6as first author
9since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 9 · 5 first-author · 8 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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
7 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 71% Efficient and distributed learning · 16% Language models and text generation · 13% |
Topics — the 14 heaviest of 14, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
3.2 | 5 | 2025 | Do LLMs "know" internally when they follow instructions? · ICLR 2025 Use perturbations when learning from explanations · NeurIPS 2023 Robust Explanation Constraints for Neural Networks · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
1.9 | 4 | 2023 | Use perturbations when learning from explanations · NeurIPS 2023 Towards More Robust Interpretation via Local Gradient Alignment · AAAI 2023 Fooling Neural Network Interpretations via Adversarial Model Manipulation · NeurIPS 2019 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
instruction following |
1.7 | 2 | 2025 | Do LLMs estimate uncertainty well in instruction-following? · ICLR 2025 Do LLMs "know" internally when they follow instructions? · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Do LLMs estimate uncertainty well in instruction-following? · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
model compression |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Parameter-Efficient Orthogonal Finetuning via Butterfly Factorization · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › parameter-efficient fine-tuning
orthogonal finetuning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Parameter-Efficient Orthogonal Finetuning via Butterfly Factorization · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
parameter-efficient fine-tuning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Parameter-Efficient Orthogonal Finetuning via Butterfly Factorization · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
explanation-based learning |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Use perturbations when learning from explanations · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
explanation constraints |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Robust Explanation Constraints for Neural Networks · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › attribution methods
feature attribution |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Towards More Robust Interpretation via Local Gradient Alignment · AAAI 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › explanation evaluation
feature attribution robustness |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Towards More Robust Interpretation via Local Gradient Alignment · AAAI 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
perturbation robustness |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Use perturbations when learning from explanations · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › visual explanation
saliency map |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Fooling Neural Network Interpretations via Adversarial Model Manipulation · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › explanation evaluation
explanation stability |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Fooling Neural Network Interpretations via Adversarial Model Manipulation · NeurIPS 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
uncertainty quantification · 0.9representation analysis · 0.9prompt engineering · 0.9benchmark evaluation · 0.9orthogonal parameterization · 0.8fast fourier transform · 0.8butterfly structure · 0.8hessian norm minimization · 0.7gradient regularization · 0.7cosine distance criterion · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | LLMs on interactive feature collections with implicit dynamic decision strategyabstractIn real-world contexts such as medical diagnosis and business consulting, effective problem-solving often requires gathering relevant information through interactions and targeted questioning to pinpoint the root cause of a problem. However, Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to efficiently narrow down the search space, leading to either missing key information or asking redundant questions when guided by implicit methods like Chain-of-Thought (CoT). Some approaches employ external engineered systems to guide reasoning paths, but these methods may not fully utilize the inherent problem-solving capabilities of LLMs and often require multiple expensive API calls. This study explores how we can implicitly guide LLMs to enhance their interactive feature collection abilities within a single prompt. Instead of employing explicit search algorithms or step-by-step external guidance, we provide high-level guidelines that allow LLMs to dynamically adjust their strategies and iteratively refine their decision-making processes independently. Evaluations on synthetic 20-Questions games and real-world scenarios, including business and medical diagnosis cases, demonstrate that LLMs guided by these strategies perform more effective interactive feature collection, asking fewer and more strategic questions and achieving better problem-solving efficiency. Juyeon Heo, Vihari Piratla, Kyunghyun Lee 0006, Hyonkeun Joh, Adrian Weller |
COLING | 1 |
| 2025 | On Evaluating LLMs' Capabilities as Functional Approximators: A Bayesian Evaluation FrameworkabstractRecent 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 |
COLING | 3 |
| 2025 | Do LLMs "know" internally when they follow instructions?abstractInstruction-following is crucial for building AI agents with large language models (LLMs), as these models must adhere strictly to user-provided constraints and guidelines.
However, LLMs often fail to follow even simple and clear instructions.
To improve instruction-following behavior and prevent undesirable outputs, a deeper understanding of how LLMs' internal states relate to these outcomes is required.
In this work, we investigate whether LLMs encode information in their representations that correlates with instruction-following success—a property we term ``knowing internally''.
Our analysis identifies a direction in the input embedding space, termed the instruction-following dimension, that predicts whether a response will comply with a given instruction.
We find that this dimension generalizes well across unseen tasks but not across unseen instruction types.
We demonstrate that modifying representations along this dimension improves instruction-following success rates compared to random changes, without compromising response quality.
Further investigation reveals that this dimension is more closely related to the phrasing of prompts rather than the inherent difficulty of the task or instructions.
This discovery also suggests explanations for why LLMs sometimes fail to follow clear instructions and why prompt engineering is often effective, even when the content remains largely unchanged.
This work provides insight into the internal workings of LLMs' instruction-following, paving the way for reliable LLM agents. Juyeon Heo, Christina Heinze-Deml, Oussama Elachqar, Kwan Ho Ryan Chan, Shirley You Ren, Andrew C. Miller, Udhyakumar Nallasamy, Jaya Narain |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2025 | Do LLMs estimate uncertainty well in instruction-following?abstractLarge language models (LLMs) could be valuable personal AI agents across various domains, provided they can precisely follow user instructions. However, recent studies have shown significant limitations in LLMs' instruction-following capabilities, raising concerns about their reliability in high-stakes applications.
Accurately estimating LLMs' uncertainty in adhering to instructions is critical to mitigating deployment risks. We present, to our knowledge, the first systematic evaluation of the uncertainty estimation abilities of LLMs in the context of instruction-following.
Our study identifies key challenges with existing instruction-following benchmarks, where multiple factors are entangled with uncertainty stems from instruction-following, complicating the isolation and comparison across methods and models.
To address these issues, we introduce a controlled evaluation setup with two benchmark versions of data, enabling a comprehensive comparison of uncertainty estimation methods under various conditions.
Our findings show that existing uncertainty methods struggle, particularly when models make subtle errors in instruction following. While internal model states provide some improvement, they remain inadequate in more complex scenarios.
The insights from our controlled evaluation setups provide a crucial understanding of LLMs' limitations and potential for uncertainty estimation in instruction-following tasks, paving the way for more trustworthy AI agents. Juyeon Heo, Miao Xiong, Christina Heinze-Deml, Jaya Narain |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2024 | Parameter-Efficient Orthogonal Finetuning via Butterfly FactorizationabstractLarge foundation models are becoming ubiquitous, but training them from scratch is prohibitively expensive. Thus, efficiently adapting these powerful models to downstream tasks is increasingly important. In this paper, we study a principled finetuning paradigm -- Orthogonal Finetuning (OFT) -- for downstream task adaptation. Despite demonstrating good generalizability, OFT still uses a fairly large number of trainable parameters due to the high dimensionality of orthogonal matrices. To address this, we start by examining OFT from an information transmission perspective, and then identify a few key desiderata that enable better parameter-efficiency. Inspired by how the Cooley-Tukey fast Fourier transform algorithm enables efficient information transmission, we propose an efficient orthogonal parameterization using butterfly structures. We apply this parameterization to OFT, creating a novel parameter-efficient finetuning method, called Orthogonal Butterfly (BOFT). By subsuming OFT as a special case, BOFT introduces a generalized orthogonal finetuning framework. Finally, we conduct an extensive empirical study of adapting large vision transformers, large language models, and text-to-image diffusion models to various downstream tasks in computer vision and natural language. The results validate the effectiveness of BOFT as a generic finetuning method. Weiyang Liu, Zeju Qiu, Yao Feng 0001, Yuliang Xiu, Yuxuan Xue 0001, Longhui Yu, Haiwen Feng, Zhen Liu 0019, Juyeon Heo, Songyou Peng, Yandong Wen, Michael J. Black, Adrian Weller, Bernhard Schölkopf |
ICLR | 9 |
| 2023 | Towards More Robust Interpretation via Local Gradient AlignmentabstractNeural network interpretation methods, particularly feature attribution methods, are known to be fragile with respect to adversarial input perturbations. To address this, several methods for enhancing the local smoothness of the gradient while training have been proposed for attaining robust feature attributions. However, the lack of considering the normalization of the attributions, which is essential in their visualizations, has been an obstacle to understanding and improving the robustness of feature attribution methods. In this paper, we provide new insights by taking such normalization into account. First, we show that for every non-negative homogeneous neural network, a naive l2-robust criterion for gradients is not normalization invariant, which means that two functions with the same normalized gradient can have different values. Second, we formulate a normalization invariant cosine distance-based criterion and derive its upper bound, which gives insight for why simply minimizing the Hessian norm at the input, as has been done in previous work, is not sufficient for attaining robust feature attribution. Finally, we propose to combine both l2 and cosine distance-based criteria as regularization terms to leverage the advantages of both in aligning the local gradient. As a result, we experimentally show that models trained with our method produce much more robust interpretations on CIFAR-10 and ImageNet-100 without significantly hurting the accuracy, compared to the recent baselines. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to verify the robustness of interpretation on a larger-scale dataset beyond CIFAR-10, thanks to the computational efficiency of our method. Sunghwan Joo, Seokhyeon Jeong, Juyeon Heo, Adrian Weller, Taesup Moon |
AAAI | 3 |
| 2023 | Robust Explanation Constraints for Neural Networks
Matthew Wicker, Juyeon Heo, Luca Costabello, Adrian Weller |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2023 | Physics-Based Decoding Improves Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting
Juyeon Heo, Pingfan Song, Weiyang Liu, Adrian Weller |
MICCAI (2) | 1 |
| 2023 | Use perturbations when learning from explanationsabstractMachine learning from explanations (MLX) is an approach to learning that uses human-provided explanations of relevant or irrelevant features for each input to ensure that model predictions are right for the right reasons. Existing MLX approaches rely on local model interpretation methods and require strong model smoothing to align model and human explanations, leading to sub-optimal performance. We recast MLX as a robustness problem, where human explanations specify a lower dimensional manifold from which perturbations can be drawn, and show both theoretically and empirically how this approach alleviates the need for strong model smoothing. We consider various approaches to achieving robustness, leading to improved performance over prior MLX methods. Finally, we show how to combine robustness with an earlier MLX method, yielding state-of-the-art results on both synthetic and real-world benchmarks. Juyeon Heo, Vihari Piratla, Matthew Wicker, Adrian Weller |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2019 | Fooling Neural Network Interpretations via Adversarial Model ManipulationabstractWe ask whether the neural network interpretation methods can be fooled via adversarial model manipulation, which is defined as a model fine-tuning step that aims to radically alter the explanations without hurting the accuracy of the original models, e.g., VGG19, ResNet50, and DenseNet121. By incorporating the interpretation results directly in the penalty term of the objective function for fine-tuning, we show that the state-of-the-art saliency map based interpreters, e.g., LRP, Grad-CAM, and SimpleGrad, can be easily fooled with our model manipulation. We propose two types of fooling, Passive and Active, and demonstrate such foolings generalize well to the entire validation set as well as transfer to other interpretation methods. Our results are validated by both visually showing the fooled explanations and reporting quantitative metrics that measure the deviations from the original explanations. We claim that the stability of neural network interpretation method with respect to our adversarial model manipulation is an important criterion to check for developing robust and reliable neural network interpretation method. Juyeon Heo, Sunghwan Joo, Taesup Moon |
NeurIPS | 1 |