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

Jin Hwa Lee

dblp:277/8357 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · unresolved

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 2 first-author · 4 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
4 papers
Language models and text generation · 22% Representation and self-supervised learning · 22% Trustworthy machine learning · 22%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.912025
Remarkable Robustness of LLMs: Stages of Inference? · NeurIPS 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model
0.912025
Remarkable Robustness of LLMs: Stages of Inference? · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
mechanistic interpretability
0.912025
Remarkable Robustness of LLMs: Stages of Inference? · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning
modular representation learning
0.912025
Range, not Independence, Drives Modularity in Biologically Inspired Representations · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › hierarchical reinforcement learning
compositional reinforcement learning
0.812024
Why Do Animals Need Shaping? A Theory of Task Composition and Curriculum Learning · ICML 2024
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
curriculum learning
0.812024
Why Do Animals Need Shaping? A Theory of Task Composition and Curriculum Learning · ICML 2024
Machine learning › Learning theory
learning dynamics
0.812024
Why Do Animals Need Shaping? A Theory of Task Composition and Curriculum Learning · ICML 2024
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
transformer
0.312025
Remarkable Robustness of LLMs: Stages of Inference? · NeurIPS 2025

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

unsupervised learning · 0.9supervised learning · 0.9linear autoencoder theory · 0.9layer swapping · 0.9layer deletion · 0.9intrinsic dimension estimation · 0.9behavioral probing · 0.9statistical physics analysis · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Geometric Signatures of Compositionality Across a Language Model's Lifetime
abstract
By virtue of linguistic compositionality, few syntactic rules and a finite lexicon can generate an unbounded number of sentences. That is, language, though seemingly high-dimensional, can be explained using relatively few degrees of freedom. An open question is whether contemporary language models (LMs) reflect the intrinsic simplicity of language that is enabled by compositionality. We take a geometric view of this problem by relating the degree of compositionality in a dataset to the intrinsic dimension (ID) of its representations under an LM, a measure of feature complexity. We find not only that the degree of dataset compositionality is reflected in representations’ ID, but that the relationship between compositionality and geometric complexity arises due to learned linguistic features over training. Finally, our analyses reveal a striking contrast between nonlinear and linear dimensionality, showing they respectively encode semantic and superficial aspects of linguistic composition.
Jin Hwa Lee, Thomas Jiralerspong, Yoshua Bengio, Emily Cheng
ACL (1)1
2025 Range, not Independence, Drives Modularity in Biologically Inspired Representations
abstract
Why do biological and artificial neurons sometimes modularise, each encoding a single meaningful variable, and sometimes entangle their representation of many variables? In this work, we develop a theory of when biologically inspired networks---those that are nonnegative and energy efficient---modularise their representation of source variables (sources). We derive necessary and sufficient conditions on a sample of sources that determine whether the neurons in an optimal biologically-inspired linear autoencoder modularise. Our theory applies to any dataset, extending far beyond the case of statistical independence studied in previous work. Rather we show that sources modularise if their support is ``sufficiently spread''. From this theory, we extract and validate predictions in a variety of empirical studies on how data distribution affects modularisation in nonlinear feedforward and recurrent neural networks trained on supervised and unsupervised tasks. Furthermore, we apply these ideas to neuroscience data, showing that range independence can be used to understand the mixing or modularising of spatial and reward information in entorhinal recordings in seemingly conflicting experiments. Further, we use these results to suggest alternate origins of mixed-selectivity, beyond the predominant theory of flexible nonlinear classification. In sum, our theory prescribes precise conditions on when neural activities modularise, providing tools for inducing and elucidating modular representations in brains and machines.
William Dorrell, Kyle Hsu, Luke Hollingsworth, Jin Hwa Lee, Jiajun Wu 0001, Chelsea Finn, Peter E. Latham, Timothy Edward John Behrens, James C. R. Whittington
ICLR4
2025 Remarkable Robustness of LLMs: Stages of Inference?
abstract
We investigate the robustness of Large Language Models (LLMs) to structural interventions by deleting and swapping adjacent layers during inference. Surprisingly, models retain 72–95\% of their original top-1 prediction accuracy without any fine-tuning. We find that performance degradation is not uniform across layers: interventions to the early and final layers cause the most degradation, while the model is remarkably robust to dropping middle layers. This pattern of localized sensitivity motivates our hypothesis of four stages of inference, observed across diverse model families and sizes: (1) detokenization, where local context is integrated to lift raw token embeddings into higher-level representations; (2) feature engineering, where task- and entity-specific features are iteratively refined; (3) prediction ensembling, where hidden states are aggregated into plausible next-token predictions; and (4) residual calibration, where irrelevant features are suppressed to finalize the output distribution. Synthesizing behavioral and mechanistic evidence, we provide a hypothesis for interpreting depth-dependent computations in LLMs.
Vedang Lad, Jin Hwa Lee, Wes Gurnee, Max Tegmark
NeurIPS2
2024 Why Do Animals Need Shaping? A Theory of Task Composition and Curriculum Learning
abstract
Diverse studies in systems neuroscience begin with extended periods of curriculum training known as ‘shaping’ procedures. These involve progressively studying component parts of more complex tasks, and can make the difference between learning a task quickly, slowly or not at all. Despite the importance of shaping to the acquisition of complex tasks, there is as yet no theory that can help guide the design of shaping procedures, or more fundamentally, provide insight into its key role in learning. Modern deep reinforcement learning systems might implicitly learn compositional primitives within their multilayer policy networks. Inspired by these models, we propose and analyse a model of deep policy gradient learning of simple compositional reinforcement learning tasks. Using the tools of statistical physics, we solve for exact learning dynamics and characterise different learning strategies including primitives pre-training, in which task primitives are studied individually before learning compositional tasks. We find a complex interplay between task complexity and the efficacy of shaping strategies. Overall, our theory provides an analytical understanding of the benefits of shaping in a class of compositional tasks and a quantitative account of how training protocols can disclose useful task primitives, ultimately yielding faster and more robust learning.
Jin Hwa Lee, Stefano Sarao Mannelli, Andrew M. Saxe
ICML1