Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Je Won Yeom
dblp:356/2472
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
3since 2021 · last 2026
—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 |
Trustworthy machine learning · 50% Question answering and dialogue systems · 25% Language models and text generation · 25% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Information retrieval · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
calibration |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | EpiCaR: Knowing What You Don't Know Matters for Better Reasoning in LLMs · ACL (1) 2026 |
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems › domain-specific question answering
legal question answering |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Evaluating Structure-Aware Retrieval and Safety in Statute-Centric Legal QA · ACL (1) 2026 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | EpiCaR: Knowing What You Don't Know Matters for Better Reasoning in LLMs · ACL (1) 2026 |
Information retrieval
retrieval models |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | Evaluating Structure-Aware Retrieval and Safety in Statute-Centric Legal QA · ACL (1) 2026 |
Information retrieval › document retrieval
structure-aware retrieval |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | Evaluating Structure-Aware Retrieval and Safety in Statute-Centric Legal QA · ACL (1) 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
large language model · 2.0self-evaluation · 1.0iterative supervised fine-tuning · 1.0confidence-weighted sampling · 1.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Evaluating Structure-Aware Retrieval and Safety in Statute-Centric Legal QAabstractKyubyung Chae, Jewon Yeom, Jeongjae Park, Seunghyun Bae, Ijun Jang, Hyunbin Jin, Jinkwan Jang, Taesup Kim. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2026. Kyubyung Chae, Je Won Yeom, Jeongjae Park, Seunghyun Bae, Ijun Jang, Hyunbin Jin, Jinkwan Jang, Taesup Kim |
ACL (1) | 2 |
| 2026 | EpiCaR: Knowing What You Don't Know Matters for Better Reasoning in LLMsabstractImproving the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) has largely relied on iterative self-training with model-generated data.While effective at boosting accuracy, existing approaches primarily reinforce successful reasoning paths, incurring a substantial calibration cost: models become overconfident and lose the ability to represent uncertainty.This failure has been characterized as a form of model collapse in alignment, where predictive distributions degenerate toward low-variance point estimates.We address this issue by reframing open-ended reasoning training as an epistemic learning problem, in which models must learn not only how to reason, but also when their reasoning should be trusted.We propose epistemically-calibrated reasoning (EPICAR) as a training objective that jointly optimizes reasoning performance and calibration, and instantiate it within an iterative supervised fine-tuning framework using explicitly extracted meta-cognitive self-evaluation signals.Experiments on Llama-3 and Qwen-3 families demonstrate that our approach achieves Pareto-superiority over standard baselines in both accuracy and calibration, particularly in models with sufficient reasoning capacity (e.g., 3B+).This framework generalizes effectively to OOD mathematical reasoning (GSM8K) and code generation (MBPP).Ultimately, our approach enables a 3× reduction in the overall inference compute budget, matching the K = 30 majority-vote performance of STaR with only K = 10 confidence-weighted samples, entirely without the multi-model overhead of external verifiers. Je Won Yeom, Jaewon Sok, Seonghyeon Park, Jeongjae Park, Taesup Kim |
ACL (1) | 1 |
| 2024 | HAE-RAE Bench: Evaluation of Korean Knowledge in Language ModelsabstractLarge language models (LLMs) trained on massive corpora demonstrate impressive capabilities in a wide range of tasks. While there are ongoing efforts to adapt these models to languages beyond English, the attention given to their evaluation methodologies remains limited. Current multilingual benchmarks often rely on back translations or re-implementations of English tests, limiting their capacity to capture unique cultural and linguistic nuances. To bridge this gap for the Korean language, we introduce the HAE-RAE Bench, a dataset curated to challenge models lacking Korean cultural and contextual depth. The dataset encompasses six downstream tasks across four domains: vocabulary, history, general knowledge, and reading comprehension. Unlike traditional evaluation suites focused on token and sequence classification or mathematical and logical reasoning, the HAE-RAE Bench emphasizes a model’s aptitude for recalling Korean-specific knowledge and cultural contexts. Comparative analysis with prior Korean benchmarks indicates that the HAE-RAE Bench presents a greater challenge to non-Korean models by disturbing abilities and knowledge learned from English being transferred. Guijin Son, Hanwool Lee, Suwan Kim, Huiseo Kim, Jaecheol Lee, Je Won Yeom, Jihyu Jung, Jungwoo Kim 0003, Songseong Kim |
LREC/COLING | 6 |