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

Chenyang An

dblp:375/2884 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Automated reasoning and model checking › automated reasoning › mathematical reasoning
autoformalization
1.012026
A Neurosymbolic Approach to Natural Language Formalization and Verification · CAV (2) 2026
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
decoding
0.912025
Correlation and Navigation in the Vocabulary Key Representation Space of Language Models · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Generative modeling › generative model evaluation
sample diversity
0.912025
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
0.812024
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
0.812024
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
0.312026
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
0.312025
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 A Neurosymbolic Approach to Natural Language Formalization and Verification
abstract
Abstract 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 Models
abstract
Language 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
ICLR2
2024 Learn from Failure: Fine-tuning LLMs with Trial-and-Error Data for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic Proving
abstract
Chenyang 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