Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Derek Andersen
dblp:344/9134
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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.
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Automata and formal languages · 100% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Deep learning architectures and training · 77% Learning theory · 23% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › sequence modeling
sequence classification |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular Languages · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024 |
Automata and formal languages
regular languages |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular Languages · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024 |
Automata and formal languages › grammatical inference
regular language learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular Languages · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
transformer · 1.5RNN · 1.5LSTM · 1.5GRU · 1.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular LanguagesabstractSynthetic datasets constructed from formal languages allow fine-grained examination of the learning and generalization capabilities of machine learning systems for sequence classification. This article presents a new benchmark for machine learning systems on sequence classification called MLRegTest, which contains training, development, and test sets from 1,800 regular languages. Different kinds of formal languages represent different kinds of long-distance dependencies, and correctly identifying long-distance dependencies in sequences is a known challenge for ML systems to generalize successfully. MLRegTest organizes its languages according to their logical complexity (monadic second order, first order, propositional, or restricted propositional) and the kind of logical literals (string, tier-string, subsequence, or combinations thereof). The logical complexity and choice of literal provides a systematic way to understand different kinds of long-distance dependencies in regular languages, and therefore to understand the capacities of different ML systems to learn such long-distance dependencies. Finally, the performance of different neural networks (simple RNN, LSTM, GRU, transformer) on MLRegTest is examined. The main conclusion is that performance depends significantly on the kind of test set, the class of language, and the neural network architecture. Sam van der Poel, Dakotah Lambert, Kalina Kostyszyn, Tiantian Gao, Rahul Verma, Derek Andersen, Joanne Chau, Emily Peterson, Cody St. Clair, Paul Fodor, Chihiro Shibata, Jeffrey Heinz |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 6 |