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

Atharva Amdekar

dblp:359/6602 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0002-4668-1895ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 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
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 50% Language models and text generation · 50%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Data integration and cleaning · 77% Knowledge graphs · 23%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
commonsense reasoning
0.712023
MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks · NeurIPS 2023
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › alignment
human alignment
0.712023
MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks · NeurIPS 2023
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model evaluation
0.712023
MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks · NeurIPS 2023
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › commonsense reasoning
moral judgment
0.712023
MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks · NeurIPS 2023

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

large language model agents · 1.0statistical analysis · 0.7dataset annotation · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Using Brand Knowledge Bases and LLM Agents to Enhance E-commerce Retailers' Catalog Quality
abstract
For e-commerce retailers, high-quality product catalogs are vital to customer experience. Yet, despite lots of data cleaning efforts, catalog quality, especially in large catalogs, remains suboptimal. This paper shows how to use unstructured brand knowledge base data as a reference and a large language model agent to automatically enhance an e-commerce retailer's catalog quality. Unlike prior methods that usually repair and match product entries separately, our method does both concurrently. Our evaluation results show its effectiveness.
Hayreddin Çeker, Gang Luo 0001, Kee Kiat Koo, Prashant Mathur, Wencong You, Atharva Amdekar, Rob Barton, Navaneet K. L., Vidit Bansal, Karim Bouyarmane
WSDM6
2023 MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks
abstract
Human commonsense understanding of the physical and social world is organized around intuitive theories. These theories support making causal and moral judgments. When something bad happens, we naturally ask: who did what, and why? A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments, such as the violation of norms and whether the harm is avoidable or inevitable. We collected a dataset of stories from 24 cognitive science papers and developed a system to annotate each story with the factors they investigated. Using this dataset, we test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with those of human participants. On the aggregate level, alignment has improved with more recent LLMs. However, using statistical analyses, we find that LLMs weigh the different factors quite differently from human participants. These results show how curated, challenge datasets combined with insights from cognitive science can help us go beyond comparisons based merely on aggregate metrics: we uncover LLMs implicit tendencies and show to what extent these align with human intuitions.
Allen Nie, Atharva Amdekar, Chris Piech, Tatsunori B. Hashimoto, Tobias Gerstenberg
NeurIPS3