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

Franziska Weeber

dblp:309/5548 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0002-6447-8671ORCID · corroborated

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 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
1 paper
Language models and text generation · 67% Trustworthy machine learning · 33%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
1.012026
One Persona, Many Cues, Different Results: How Sociodemographic Cues Impact LLM Personalization · ACL (1) 2026
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model › large language model adaptation
personalization
1.012026
One Persona, Many Cues, Different Results: How Sociodemographic Cues Impact LLM Personalization · ACL (1) 2026
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › prompting
persona prompting
1.012026
One Persona, Many Cues, Different Results: How Sociodemographic Cues Impact LLM Personalization · ACL (1) 2026

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

prompt variation analysis · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 One Persona, Many Cues, Different Results: How Sociodemographic Cues Impact LLM Personalization
abstract
Personalization of LLMs by sociodemographic subgroup often improves user experience, but can also introduce or amplify biases and unfair outcomes across groups.Prior work has employed so-called personas, sociodemographic user attributes conveyed to a model, to study bias in LLMs by relying on a single cue to prompt a persona, such as user names or explicit attribute mentions.This disregards LLM sensitivity to prompt variation and the rarity of some cues in real interactions (external validity).We compare six commonly used persona cues across seven open and proprietary LLMs on four writing and advice tasks.While cues are overall highly correlated, they produce substantial variance in responses across personas that can change findings on persona-induced differences and bias.We therefore caution against claims based on single persona cues, especially when they are overly explicit and have low external validity.
Franziska Weeber, Vera Neplenbroek, Jan Batzner, Sebastian Padó
ACL (1)1
2026 PRSM: A Measure to Evaluate CLIP's Robustness Against Paraphrases
Udo Schlegel, Franziska Weeber, Thomas Seidl 0001
MMM (4)2