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

Xingyu Dang

dblp:348/8880 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—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.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Language models and text generation · 67% Learning theory · 33%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
chain-of-thought reasoning
0.912025
RNNs are not Transformers (Yet): The Key Bottleneck on In-Context Retrieval · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › retrieval augmentation
in-context retrieval
0.912025
RNNs are not Transformers (Yet): The Key Bottleneck on In-Context Retrieval · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Learning theory › neural network theory
representational capacity
0.912025
RNNs are not Transformers (Yet): The Key Bottleneck on In-Context Retrieval · ICLR 2025
Information retrieval
retrieval-augmented generation
0.312025
RNNs are not Transformers (Yet): The Key Bottleneck on In-Context Retrieval · ICLR 2025

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

theoretical analysis · 1.7synthetic experiments · 1.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 RNNs are not Transformers (Yet): The Key Bottleneck on In-Context Retrieval
abstract
This paper investigates the gap in representation powers of Transformers and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), which are more memory efficient than Transformers. We aim to understand whether RNNs can match the performance of Transformers, particularly when enhanced with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting. Our theoretical analysis reveals that CoT improves RNNs but is insufficient to close the gap with Transformers. A key bottleneck lies in the inability of RNNs to perfectly retrieve information from the context, even with CoT: for several tasks that explicitly or implicitly require this capability, such as associative recall and determining if a graph is a tree, we prove that RNNs are not expressive enough to solve the tasks while Transformers can solve them with ease. Conversely, we prove that adopting techniques to enhance the in-context retrieval capability of RNNs, including Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and adding a single Transformer layer, can elevate RNNs to be capable of solving all polynomial-time solvable problems with CoT, hence closing the representation gap with Transformers. We validate our theory on synthetic and natural language experiments.
Kaiyue Wen, Xingyu Dang, Kaifeng Lyu
ICLR2