Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Chenyang An
dblp:375/2884
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
3since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author · 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
3 papers |
Language models and text generation · 72% Generative modeling · 28% | |
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Automated reasoning and model checking › automated reasoning › mathematical reasoning
autoformalization |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | A Neurosymbolic Approach to Natural Language Formalization and Verification · CAV (2) 2026 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
decoding |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Correlation and Navigation in the Vocabulary Key Representation Space of Language Models · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling › generative model evaluation
sample diversity |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Correlation and Navigation in the Vocabulary Key Representation Space of Language Models · ICLR 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model fine-tuning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Learn from Failure: Fine-tuning LLMs with Trial-and-Error Data for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic Proving · ACL (1) 2024 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
theorem proving |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Learn from Failure: Fine-tuning LLMs with Trial-and-Error Data for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic Proving · ACL (1) 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model safety
LLM guardrail |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | A Neurosymbolic Approach to Natural Language Formalization and Verification · CAV (2) 2026 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
chain-of-thought reasoning |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Correlation and Navigation in the Vocabulary Key Representation Space of Language Models · ICLR 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
large language model · 2.0automated reasoning · 2.0trial-and-error learning · 1.5fine-tuning · 1.5knowledge probing · 0.9in-context method · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | A Neurosymbolic Approach to Natural Language Formalization and VerificationabstractAbstract Large Language Models perform well at natural language interpretation and reasoning, but their lack of formal correctness guarantees limits their adoption in regulated industries like finance and healthcare that operate under strict policies. To address this limitation, we launched Automated Reasoning checks (ARc) : a public service that (1) uses LLMs with optional human guidance to formalize natural language policies, allowing fine-grained control of the formalization process, and (2) uses inference-time autoformalization to validate logical correctness of natural language statements against those policies. ARc performs multiple redundant formalization steps at inference time, checking the formalizations for semantic equivalence. Our benchmarks show that ARc exceeds 99% soundness and achieves a near-zero false positive rate in identifying logical validity. Our approach produces auditable artifacts that substantiate the verification outcomes and can be used to improve the original text. ARc is the first commercial offering from a major cloud provider to integrate automated reasoning into a generative AI guardrail. Chenyang An, Sam Bayless, Stefano Buliani, Darion Cassel, Byron Cook, Duncan Clough, Rémi Delmas, Nafi Diallo, Ferhat Erata, Nick Feng, Dimitra Giannakopoulou, Aman Goel, Aditya Gokhale, Joe Hendrix, Victor Heorhiadi, Marc Hudak, Dejan Jovanovic, Andrew M. Kent, Benjamin Kiesl-Reiter, Jeffrey J. Kuna, Nadia Labai, Joe Lilien, Divya Raghunathan, Zvonimir Rakamaric, Niloofar Razavi, Michael Tautschnig, Ali Torkamani, Nathaniel Weir, Michael W. Whalen, Jianan Yao |
CAV (2) | 1 |
| 2025 | Correlation and Navigation in the Vocabulary Key Representation Space of Language ModelsabstractLanguage model (LM) decoding is based on the next-token prediction (NTP) probability distribution. For neural LMs (e.g., Transformer-based), NTP distribution is
essentially a softmax-regularized dot product between an encoded input context
(query) and fixed vocabulary representations (keys). In this paper, we study the
effect of the key distribution on the NTP distribution, with a focus on whether
the similarity between keys will trigger spurious correlations in NTP. Through
knowledge-probing tasks, we show that in the NTP distribution, the few top-ranked
tokens are typically accurate. However, the middle-ranked prediction is highly biased
towards the tokens that are distributionally (not necessarily semantically) similar to
these top ones. For instance, if “P” is predicted as the top-1 token, “A”-“Z” will all
be ranked high in NTP, no matter whether they can lead to correct decoding results.
This hurts the sampling diversity and makes the sampling of correct, long-tail
results hopeless and noisy. We attempt to alleviate this issue via a novel in-context
method that iteratively pushes the query representation away from explored regions.
Specifically, we include the explored decoding results in the context and prompt
the LM to generate something else, which encourages the LM to produce a query
representation that has small dot products with explored keys. Experiments on
knowledge-probing tasks show that our method leads to efficient navigation away
from explored keys to correct new keys. We further extend our method to open-ended and chain-of-thought (for reasoning) generation. Experiment results show
that ICN contributes to better generation diversity and improved self-consistency
voting performance. Finally, we discuss potential training issues caused by the
fixed key space together with the challenges and possible ways to address them in
future research. Letian Peng, Chenyang An, Jingbo Shang |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2024 | Learn from Failure: Fine-tuning LLMs with Trial-and-Error Data for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic ProvingabstractChenyang An, Zhibo Chen, Qihao Ye, Emily First, Letian Peng, Jiayun Zhang, Zihan Wang, Sorin Lerner, Jingbo Shang. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024. Chenyang An, Zhibo Chen 0009, Qihao Ye, Emily First, Letian Peng, Jiayun Zhang, Zihan Wang 0001, Sorin Lerner, Jingbo Shang |
ACL (1) | 1 |