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

Ahmet Yavuz Uluslu

dblp:301/8197 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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
1 paper
Information extraction and text analysis · 77% Trustworthy machine learning · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › text mining › authorship analysis
native language identification
0.912025
Robust Native Language Identification through Agentic Decomposition · EMNLP 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › spurious correlation
spurious cue robustness
0.312025
Robust Native Language Identification through Agentic Decomposition · EMNLP 2025

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

prompting · 0.9large language model · 0.9agentic decomposition · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Robust Native Language Identification through Agentic Decomposition
abstract
Large language models (LLMs) often achieve high performance in native language identification (NLI) benchmarks by leveraging superficial contextual clues such as names, locations, and cultural stereotypes, rather than the underlying linguistic patterns indicative of native language (L1) influence.To improve robustness, previous work has instructed LLMs to disregard such clues.In this work, we demonstrate that such a strategy is unreliable and model predictions can be easily altered by misleading hints.To address this problem, we introduce an agentic NLI pipeline inspired by forensic linguistics, where specialized agents accumulate and categorize diverse linguistic evidence before an independent final overall assessment.In this final assessment, a goal-aware coordinating agent synthesizes all evidence to make the NLI prediction.On two benchmark datasets, our approach significantly enhances NLI robustness against misleading contextual clues and performance consistency compared to standard prompting methods. 1
Ahmet Yavuz Uluslu, Tannon Kew, Tilia Ellendorff, Gerold Schneider, Rico Sennrich
EMNLP1