EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Mark Rofin
dblp:331/2588
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-author · 3 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 |
Deep learning architectures and training · 35% Language models and text generation · 35% Learning theory · 30% | |
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Computational complexity · 100% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
transformer |
1.0 | 2 | 2025 | Why are Sensitive Functions Hard for Transformers? · ACL (1) 2024 Lower Bounds for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Hard-Attention Transformers · ICML 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
chain-of-thought reasoning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Lower Bounds for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Hard-Attention Transformers · ICML 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model reasoning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Lower Bounds for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Hard-Attention Transformers · ICML 2025 |
Computational complexity
circuit complexity |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Lower Bounds for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Hard-Attention Transformers · ICML 2025 |
Computational complexity › circuit complexity
transformer expressivity |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Lower Bounds for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Hard-Attention Transformers · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › neural network theory
expressiveness and learnability |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Why are Sensitive Functions Hard for Transformers? · ACL (1) 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
inductive bias |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Why are Sensitive Functions Hard for Transformers? · ACL (1) 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
loss landscape |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Why are Sensitive Functions Hard for Transformers? · ACL (1) 2024 |
Computational complexity › boolean function analysis › symmetric functions
parity |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Why are Sensitive Functions Hard for Transformers? · ACL (1) 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
hard-attention analysis · 1.7circuit complexity lower bounds · 1.7theoretical analysis · 1.5empirical evaluation · 1.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Lower Bounds for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Hard-Attention TransformersabstractChain-of-thought reasoning and scratchpads have emerged as critical tools for enhancing the computational capabilities of transformers. While theoretical results show that polynomial-length scratchpads can extend transformers’ expressivity from $TC^0$ to $PTIME$, their required length remains poorly understood. Empirical evidence even suggests that transformers need scratchpads even for many problems in $TC^0$, such as Parity or Multiplication, challenging optimistic bounds derived from circuit complexity. In this work, we initiate the study of systematic lower bounds for the number of CoT steps across different algorithmic problems, in the hard-attention regime. We study a variety of algorithmic problems, and provide bounds that are tight up to logarithmic factors. Overall, these results contribute to emerging understanding of the power and limitations of chain-of-thought reasoning. Alireza Amiri Bavandpour, Xinting Huang, Mark Rofin, Michael Hahn 0001 |
ICML | 3 |
| 2024 | Why are Sensitive Functions Hard for Transformers?abstractEmpirical studies have identified a range of learnability biases and limitations of transformers, such as a persistent difficulty in learning to compute simple formal languages such as PARITY, and a bias towards low-degree functions.However, theoretical understanding remains limited, with existing expressiveness theory either overpredicting or underpredicting realistic learning abilities.We prove that, under the transformer architecture, the loss landscape is constrained by the inputspace sensitivity: Transformers whose output is sensitive to many parts of the input string inhabit isolated points in parameter space, leading to a low-sensitivity bias in generalization.We show theoretically and empirically that this theory unifies a broad array of empirical observations about the learning abilities and biases of transformers, such as their generalization bias towards low sensitivity and low degree, and difficulty in length generalization for PARITY.This shows that understanding transformers' inductive biases requires studying not just their in-principle expressivity, but also their loss landscape. Michael Hahn 0001, Mark Rofin |
ACL (1) | 2 |
| 2023 | Vote'n'Rank: Revision of Benchmarking with Social Choice TheoryabstractMark Rofin, Vladislav Mikhailov, Mikhail Florinsky, Andrey Kravchenko, Tatiana Shavrina, Elena Tutubalina, Daniel Karabekyan, Ekaterina Artemova. Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2023. Mark Rofin, Vladislav Mikhailov, Mikhail Florinsky, Andrey Kravchenko, Tatiana Shavrina, Elena Tutubalina, Daniel Karabekyan, Ekaterina Artemova |
EACL | 1 |