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

Alfonso Amayuelas

dblp:281/7669 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
1as first author
5since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 1 first-author · 5 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 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
5 papers
Language models and text generation · 45% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 22% Learning theory · 11%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Knowledge graphs · 100%

Topics — the 13 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning theory › neural network theory
memorization and generalization
0.912025
Generalization v.s. Memorization: Tracing Language Models' Capabilities Back to Pretraining Data · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › evaluation of language models › multilingual evaluation
multilingual language model evaluation
0.912025
INCLUDE: Evaluating Multilingual Language Understanding with Regional Knowledge · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems
multilingual question answering
0.912025
INCLUDE: Evaluating Multilingual Language Understanding with Regional Knowledge · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model training › language model pretraining
pretraining data analysis
0.912025
Generalization v.s. Memorization: Tracing Language Models' Capabilities Back to Pretraining Data · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
chain-of-thought reasoning
0.812024
Understanding Reasoning Ability of Language Models From the Perspective of Reasoning Paths Aggregation · ICML 2024
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
logic-based reasoning
0.612022
Neural Methods for Logical Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs · ICLR 2022
Knowledge graphs
knowledge graph reasoning
0.612022
Neural Methods for Logical Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs · ICLR 2022
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.512021
The Importance of Modeling Data Missingness in Algorithmic Fairness: A Causal Perspective · AAAI 2021
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model
0.312025
INCLUDE: Evaluating Multilingual Language Understanding with Regional Knowledge · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › large-scale learning
model scaling
0.312025
Generalization v.s. Memorization: Tracing Language Models' Capabilities Back to Pretraining Data · ICLR 2025
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
knowledge graph reasoning
0.212024
Understanding Reasoning Ability of Language Models From the Perspective of Reasoning Paths Aggregation · ICML 2024
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
neuro-symbolic reasoning
0.212022
Neural Methods for Logical Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs · ICLR 2022
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
causal fairness
0.112021
The Importance of Modeling Data Missingness in Algorithmic Fairness: A Causal Perspective · AAAI 2021

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

neural network · 1.1logical query embedding · 1.1n-gram language model · 0.9correlation analysis · 0.9random walk · 0.8next-token prediction · 0.8causal graph · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Generalization v.s. Memorization: Tracing Language Models' Capabilities Back to Pretraining Data
abstract
The impressive capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have sparked debate over whether these models genuinely generalize to unseen tasks or predominantly rely on memorizing vast amounts of pretraining data. To explore this issue, we introduce an extended concept of memorization, distributional memorization, which measures the correlation between the LLM output probabilities and the pretraining data frequency. To effectively capture task-specific pretraining data frequency, we propose a novel task-gram language model, which is built by counting the co-occurrence of semantically related $n$-gram pairs from task inputs and outputs in the pretraining corpus. Using the Pythia models trained on the Pile dataset, we evaluate four distinct tasks: machine translation, factual question answering, world knowledge understanding, and math reasoning. Our findings reveal varying levels of memorization, with the strongest effect observed in factual question answering. Furthermore, while model performance improves across all tasks as LLM size increases, only factual question answering shows an increase in memorization, whereas machine translation and reasoning tasks exhibit greater generalization, producing more novel outputs. This study demonstrates that memorization plays a larger role in simpler, knowledge-intensive tasks, while generalization is the key for harder, reasoning-based tasks, providing a scalable method for analyzing large pretraining corpora in greater depth.
Xinyi Wang 0003, Antonis Antoniades, Yanai Elazar, Alfonso Amayuelas, Alon Albalak, Kexun Zhang, William Yang Wang
ICLR4
2025 INCLUDE: Evaluating Multilingual Language Understanding with Regional Knowledge
abstract
The performance differential of large language models (LLM) between languages hinders their effective deployment in many regions, inhibiting the potential economic and societal value of generative AI tools in many communities. However, the development of functional LLMs in many languages (i.e., multilingual LLMs) is bottlenecked by the lack of high-quality evaluation resources in languages other than English. Moreover, current practices in multilingual benchmark construction often translate English resources, ignoring the regional and cultural knowledge of the environments in which multilingual systems would be used. In this work, we construct an evaluation suite of 197,243 QA pairs from local exam sources to measure the capabilities of multilingual LLMs in a variety of regional contexts. Our novel resource, INCLUDE, is a comprehensive knowledge- and reasoning-centric benchmark across 44 written languages that evaluates multilingual LLMs for performance in the actual language environments where they would be deployed.
Angelika Romanou, Negar Foroutan Eghlidi, Anna Sotnikova, Zeming Chen 0001, Sree Harsha Nelaturu, Shivalika Singh, Rishabh Maheshwary, Micol Altomare, Mohamed A. Haggag, Imanol Schlag, Marzieh Fadaee, Sara Hooker, Antoine Bosselut, Snegha A, Alfonso Amayuelas, Azril Hafizi Amirudin, Viraat Aryabumi, Danylo Boiko, Jenny Chim, Gal Cohen, Aditya Kumar Dalmia, Abraham Diress, Sharad Duwal, Daniil Dzenhaliou, Daniel Fernando Erazo Florez, Fabian Farestam, Joseph Marvin Imperial, Shayekh Bin Islam, Perttu Isotalo, Maral Jabbarishiviari, Börje Karlsson 0001, Eldar Khalilov, Christopher Klamm, Fajri Koto, Dominik Krzeminski, Gabriel Adriano de Melo, Syrielle Montariol, Yiyang Nan, Joel Niklaus, Jekaterina Novikova, Johan S. Obando-Ceron, Debjit Paul, Esther Ploeger, Jebish Purbey, Swati Rajwal, Selvan Sunitha Ravi, Sara Rydell, Roshan Santhosh, Drishti Sharma, Marjana Prifti Skenduli, Arshia Soltani Moakhar, Bardia Soltani Moakhar, Ran Tamir, Ayush K. Tarun, Azmine Toushik Wasi, Thenuka Ovin Weerasinghe, Serhan Yilmaz, Mike Zhang
ICLR15
2024 Understanding Reasoning Ability of Language Models From the Perspective of Reasoning Paths Aggregation
abstract
Pre-trained language models (LMs) are able to perform complex reasoning without explicit fine-tuning. To understand how pre-training with a next-token prediction objective contributes to the emergence of such reasoning capability, we propose that we can view an LM as deriving new conclusions by aggregating indirect reasoning paths seen at pre-training time. We found this perspective effective in two important cases of reasoning: logic reasoning with knowledge graphs (KGs) and chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. More specifically, we formalize the reasoning paths as random walk paths on the knowledge/reasoning graphs. Analyses of learned LM distributions suggest that a weighted sum of relevant random walk path probabilities is a reasonable way to explain how LMs reason. Experiments and analysis on multiple KG and CoT datasets reveal the effect of training on random walk paths and suggest that augmenting unlabeled random walk reasoning paths can improve real-world multi-step reasoning performance.
Xinyi Wang 0003, Alfonso Amayuelas, Kexun Zhang, Liangming Pan, Wenhu Chen, William Yang Wang
ICML2
2022 Neural Methods for Logical Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs
Alfonso Amayuelas, Shuai Zhang 0007, Susie Xi Rao, Ce Zhang 0001
ICLR1
2021 The Importance of Modeling Data Missingness in Algorithmic Fairness: A Causal Perspective
abstract
Training datasets for machine learning often have some form of missingness. For example, to learn a model for deciding whom to give a loan, the available training data includes individuals who were given a loan in the past, but not those who were not. This missingness, if ignored, nullifies any fairness guarantee of the training procedure when the model is deployed. Using causal graphs, we characterize the missingness mechanisms in different real-world scenarios. We show conditions under which various distributions, used in popular fairness algorithms, can or can not be recovered from the training data. Our theoretical results imply that many of these algorithms can not guarantee fairness in practice. Modeling missingness also helps to identify correct design principles for fair algorithms. For example, in multi-stage settings where decisions are made in multiple screening rounds, we use our framework to derive the minimal distributions required to design a fair algorithm. Our proposed algorithm also decentralizes the decision-making process and still achieves similar performance to the optimal algorithm that requires centralization and non-recoverable distributions.
Naman Goel, Alfonso Amayuelas, Amit Sharma 0007
AAAI2