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

Amie J. Paige

dblp:385/0906 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 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
Vision and language · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Human-AI interaction · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computer vision › Vision and language
multimodal grounding
1.012026
LVLMs and Humans Ground Differently in Referential Communication · ACL (1) 2026

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

human study · 2.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 LVLMs and Humans Ground Differently in Referential Communication
abstract
Peter Zeng, Weiling Li, Amie J. Paige, Zhengxiang Wang, Panagiotis Kaliosis, Dimitris Samaras, Gregory J. Zelinsky, Susan Brennan, Owen Rambow. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2026.
Peter Zeng, Weiling Li, Amie J. Paige, Zhengxiang Wang, Panagiotis Kaliosis, Dimitris Samaras, Gregory J. Zelinsky, Susan Brennan, Owen Rambow
ACL (1)3
2024 Training LLMs to Recognize Hedges in Dialogues about Roadrunner Cartoons
abstract
Hedges allow speakers to mark utterances as provisional, whether to signal nonprototypicality or "fuzziness", to indicate a lack of commitment to an utterance, to attribute responsibility for a statement to someone else, to invite input from a partner, or to soften critical feedback in the service of face-management needs.Here we focus on hedges in an experimentally parameterized corpus of 63 Roadrunner cartoon narratives spontaneously produced from memory by 21 speakers for copresent addressees, transcribed to text (Galati and Brennan, 2010).We created a gold standard of hedges annotated by human coders (the Roadrunner-Hedge corpus) and compared three LLM-based approaches for hedge detection: fine-tuning BERT, and zero and fewshot prompting with GPT-4o and LLaMA-3.The best-performing approach was a fine-tuned BERT model, followed by few-shot GPT-4o.After an error analysis on the top performing approaches, we used an LLM-in-the-Loop approach to improve the gold standard coding, as well as to highlight cases in which hedges are ambiguous in linguistically interesting ways that will guide future research.This is the first step in our research program to train LLMs to interpret and generate collateral signals appropriately and meaningfully in conversation.
Amie J. Paige, Adil Soubki, John Murzaku, Owen Rambow, Susan Brennan
SIGDIAL1