Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Mathijs Mul
dblp:242/7865
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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 |
Language models and text generation · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Logic in computer science · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
compositional generalization |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Compositionality Decomposed: How do Neural Networks Generalise? (Extended Abstract) · IJCAI 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › language modeling › language model architecture
sequence-to-sequence model |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Compositionality Decomposed: How do Neural Networks Generalise? (Extended Abstract) · IJCAI 2020 |
Logic in computer science › formal semantics
compositional semantics |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Compositionality Decomposed: How do Neural Networks Generalise? (Extended Abstract) · IJCAI 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
sequence-to-sequence model · 0.9diagnostic classifiers · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Compositionality Decomposed: How do Neural Networks Generalise? (Extended Abstract)abstractDespite a multitude of empirical studies, little consensus exists on whether neural networks are able to generalise compositionally. As a response to this controversy, we present a set of tests that provide a bridge between, on the one hand, the vast amount of linguistic and philosophical theory about compositionality of language and, on the other, the successful neural models of language. We collect different interpretations of compositionality and translate them into five theoretically grounded tests for models that are formulated on a task-independent level. To demonstrate the usefulness of this evaluation paradigm, we instantiate these five tests on a highly compositional data set which we dub PCFG SET, apply the resulting tests to three popular sequence-to-sequence models and provide an in-depth analysis of the results. Dieuwke Hupkes, Verna Dankers, Mathijs Mul, Elia Bruni |
IJCAI | 3 |
| 2020 | Compositionality Decomposed: How do Neural Networks Generalise?abstractDespite a multitude of empirical studies, little consensus exists on whether neural networks are able to generalise compositionally, a controversy that, in part, stems from a lack of agreement about what it means for a neural model to be compositional. As a response to this controversy, we present a set of tests that provide a bridge between, on the one hand, the vast amount of linguistic and philosophical theory about compositionality of language and, on the other, the successful neural models of language. We collect different interpretations of compositionality and translate them into five theoretically grounded tests for models that are formulated on a task-independent level. In particular, we provide tests to investigate (i) if models systematically recombine known parts and rules (ii) if models can extend their predictions beyond the length they have seen in the training data (iii) if models’ composition operations are local or global (iv) if models’ predictions are robust to synonym substitutions and (v) if models favour rules or exceptions during training. To demonstrate the usefulness of this evaluation paradigm, we instantiate these five tests on a highly compositional data set which we dub PCFG SET and apply the resulting tests to three popular sequence-to-sequence models: a recurrent, a convolution-based and a transformer model. We provide an in-depth analysis of the results, which uncover the strengths and weaknesses of these three architectures and point to potential areas of improvement. Dieuwke Hupkes, Verna Dankers, Mathijs Mul, Elia Bruni |
J. Artif. Intell. Res. | 3 |