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

Li-Chung Lin

dblp:308/6370 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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
2 papers
Efficient and distributed learning · 34% Learning theory · 26% Graph learning · 22%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
sampled softmax
0.912025
Sampled Estimators For Softmax Must Be Biased · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph representation learning
0.612022
On the Use of Unrealistic Predictions in Hundreds of Papers Evaluating Graph Representations · AAAI 2022
Machine learning › Graph learning › graph neural network › node classification
multi-label node classification
0.212022
On the Use of Unrealistic Predictions in Hundreds of Papers Evaluating Graph Representations · AAAI 2022

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

sampled-softmax · 0.9f-divergence · 0.9empirical analysis · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Sampled Estimators For Softmax Must Be Biased
abstract
Models requiring probabilistic outputs are ubiquitous and used in fields such as natural language processing, contrastive learning, and recommendation systems. The standard method of designing such a model is to output unconstrained logits, which are normalized into probabilities with the softmax function. The normalization involves computing a summation across all classes, which becomes prohibitively expensive for problems with a large number of classes. An important strategy to reduce the cost is to sum over a sampled subset of classes in the softmax function, known as the sampled softmax. It was known that the sampled softmax is biased; the expectation taken over the sampled classes is not equal to the softmax function. Many works focused on reducing the bias by using a better way of sampling the subset. However, while sampled softmax is biased, it is unclear whether an unbiased function different from sampled softmax exists. In this paper, we show that all functions that only access a sampled subset of classes must be biased. With this result, we prevent efforts in finding unbiased loss functions and validate that past efforts devoted to reducing bias are the best we can do.
Li-Chung Lin, Yaxu Liu, Chih-Jen Lin
NeurIPS1
2022 On the Use of Unrealistic Predictions in Hundreds of Papers Evaluating Graph Representations
abstract
Prediction using the ground truth sounds like an oxymoron in machine learning. However, such an unrealistic setting was used in hundreds, if not thousands of papers in the area of finding graph representations. To evaluate the multi-label problem of node classification by using the obtained representations, many works assume that the number of labels of each test instance is known in the prediction stage. In practice such ground truth information is rarely available, but we point out that such an inappropriate setting is now ubiquitous in this research area. We detailedly investigate why the situation occurs. Our analysis indicates that with unrealistic information, the performance is likely over-estimated. To see why suitable predictions were not used, we identify difficulties in applying some multi-label techniques. For the use in future studies, we propose simple and effective settings without using practically unknown information. Finally, we take this chance to compare major graph representation learning methods on multi-label node classification.
Li-Chung Lin, Cheng-Hung Liu 0001, Chih-Ming Chen 0003, Kai-Chin Hsu, I-Feng Wu, Ming-Feng Tsai, Chih-Jen Lin
AAAI1