Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
William Sheffield
dblp:318/3104 · also William Berkeley Sheffield
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 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 |
Language models and text generation · 78% Information extraction and text analysis · 22% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › text generation
text simplification |
1.2 | 2 | 2023 | Elaborative Simplification as Implicit Questions Under Discussion · EMNLP 2023 Evaluating Factuality in Text Simplification · ACL (1) 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
discourse analysis |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Elaborative Simplification as Implicit Questions Under Discussion · EMNLP 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › trustworthy language model › large language model reliability
factuality |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Evaluating Factuality in Text Simplification · ACL (1) 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › evaluation of language models
factuality evaluation |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Evaluating Factuality in Text Simplification · ACL (1) 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
question generation · 0.7error taxonomy · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Elaborative Simplification as Implicit Questions Under DiscussionabstractAutomated text simplification, a technique useful for making text more accessible to people such as children and emergent bilinguals, is often thought of as a monolingual translation task from complex to simplified text.This view fails to account for elaborative simplification, where new information is added into the simplified text.This paper proposes to view elaborative simplification through the lens of the Question Under Discussion (QUD) framework, providing a robust way to investigate what writers elaborate upon, how they elaborate, and how elaborations fit into the discourse context by viewing elaborations as explicit answers to implicit questions.We introduce ELABQUD, consisting of 1.3K elaborations accompanied with implicit QUDs, to study these phenomena.We show that explicitly modeling QUD (via question generation) not only provides essential understanding of elaborative simplification and how the elaborations connect with the rest of the discourse, but also substantially improves the quality of elaboration generation. Yating Wu 0002, William Sheffield, Kyle Mahowald, Junyi Jessy Li |
EMNLP | 2 |
| 2022 | Evaluating Factuality in Text Simplificationabstractmodels aim to make input texts more readable. Such methods have the potential to make complex information accessible to a wider audience, e.g., providing access to recent medical literature which might otherwise be impenetrable for a lay reader. However, such models risk introducing errors into automatically simplified texts, for instance by inserting statements unsupported by the corresponding original text, or by omitting key information. Providing more readable but inaccurate versions of texts may in many cases be worse than providing no such access at all. The problem of factual accuracy (and the lack thereof) has received heightened attention in the context of summarization models, but the factuality of automatically simplified texts has not been investigated. We introduce a taxonomy of errors that we use to analyze both references drawn from standard simplification datasets and state-of-the-art model outputs. We find that errors often appear in both that are not captured by existing evaluation metrics, motivating a need for research into ensuring the factual accuracy of automated simplification models. Ashwin Devaraj, William Sheffield, Byron C. Wallace, Junyi Jessy Li |
ACL (1) | 2 |