EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Richard J. Antonello
dblp:387/2006
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
3as first author
6since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 3 first-author · 6 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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
5 papers |
Representation and self-supervised learning · 40% Language models and text generation · 19% Vision and language · 17% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
2 papers |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% |
Topics — the 14 heaviest of 16, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computer vision › Vision and language
multimodal representation |
1.2 | 2 | 2023 | Scaling laws for language encoding models in fMRI · NeurIPS 2023 Low-dimensional Structure in the Space of Language Representations is Reflected in Brain Responses · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning
disentangled representation learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Far from the Shallow: Brain-Predictive Reasoning Embedding through Residual Disentanglement · NeurIPS 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › computational neuroscience › neural response modeling
brain encoding model |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Far from the Shallow: Brain-Predictive Reasoning Embedding through Residual Disentanglement · NeurIPS 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › neuroscience
neuroinformatics |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Far from the Shallow: Brain-Predictive Reasoning Embedding through Residual Disentanglement · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › embedding learning
interpretable embedding |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Crafting Interpretable Embeddings for Language Neuroscience by Asking LLMs Questions · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › computational neuroscience › neural coding
brain encoding models |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Scaling laws for language encoding models in fMRI · NeurIPS 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › language model analysis
language model scaling |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Scaling laws for language encoding models in fMRI · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
scaling laws |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Scaling laws for language encoding models in fMRI · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › data selection
data selection for fine-tuning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Selecting Informative Contexts Improves Language Model Fine-tuning · ACL/IJCNLP (1) 2021 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model fine-tuning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Selecting Informative Contexts Improves Language Model Fine-tuning · ACL/IJCNLP (1) 2021 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
representation analysis |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Low-dimensional Structure in the Space of Language Representations is Reflected in Brain Responses · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › language model interpretability
language model probing |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Far from the Shallow: Brain-Predictive Reasoning Embedding through Residual Disentanglement · NeurIPS 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology
computational neuroscience |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Crafting Interpretable Embeddings for Language Neuroscience by Asking LLMs Questions · NeurIPS 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › neural language model
neural language model representations |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Low-dimensional Structure in the Space of Language Representations is Reflected in Brain Responses · NeurIPS 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
residual disentanglement · 1.7regression · 1.7probing · 1.7prompting · 1.5large language model · 1.5fMRI encoding · 1.2transformer language model · 0.7noise ceiling analysis · 0.7fine-tuning · 0.5context selection · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Neuro2Semantic: A Transfer Learning Framework for Semantic Reconstruction of Continuous Language from Human Intracranial EEG
Siavash Shams, Richard J. Antonello, Gavin Mischler, Stephan Bickel, Ashesh D. Mehta, Nima Mesgarani |
INTERSPEECH | 2 |
| 2025 | Far from the Shallow: Brain-Predictive Reasoning Embedding through Residual DisentanglementabstractUnderstanding how the human brain progresses from processing simple linguistic inputs to performing high-level reasoning is a fundamental challenge in neuroscience. While modern large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to model neural responses to language, their internal representations are highly "entangled," mixing information about lexicon, syntax, meaning, and reasoning. This entanglement biases conventional brain encoding analyses toward linguistically shallow features (e.g., lexicon and syntax), making it difficult to isolate the neural substrates of cognitively deeper processes. Here, we introduce a residual disentanglement method that computationally isolates these components. By first probing an LM to identify feature-specific layers, our method iteratively regresses out lower-level representations to produce four nearly orthogonal embeddings for lexicon, syntax, meaning, and, critically, reasoning. We used these disentangled embeddings to model intracranial (ECoG) brain recordings from neurosurgical patients listening to natural speech. We show that: 1) This isolated reasoning embedding exhibits unique predictive power, accounting for variance in neural activity not explained by other linguistic features and even extending to the recruitment of visual regions beyond classical language areas. 2) The neural signature for reasoning is temporally distinct, peaking later (~350-400ms) than signals related to lexicon, syntax, and meaning, consistent with its position atop a processing hierarchy. 3) Standard, non-disentangled LLM embeddings can be misleading, as their predictive success is primarily attributable to linguistically shallow features, masking the more subtle contributions of deeper cognitive processing. Our work provides compelling neural evidence for an abstract reasoning computation during language comprehension and offers a robust framework for mapping distinct cognitive functions from artificial models to the human brain. Linyang He, Tianjun Zhong, Richard J. Antonello, Gavin Mischler, Micah Goldblum, Nima Mesgarani |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2024 | Crafting Interpretable Embeddings for Language Neuroscience by Asking LLMs QuestionsabstractLarge language models (LLMs) have rapidly improved text embeddings for a growing array of natural-language processing tasks. However, their opaqueness and proliferation into scientific domains such as neuroscience have created a growing need for interpretability. Here, we ask whether we can obtain interpretable embeddings through LLM prompting. We introduce question-answering embeddings (QA-Emb), embeddings where each feature represents an answer to a yes/no question asked to an LLM. Training QA-Emb reduces to selecting a set of underlying questions rather than learning model weights.
We use QA-Emb to flexibly generate interpretable models for predicting fMRI voxel responses to language stimuli. QA-Emb significantly outperforms an established interpretable baseline, and does so while requiring very few questions. This paves the way towards building flexible feature spaces that can concretize and evaluate our understanding of semantic brain representations. We additionally find that QA-Emb can be effectively approximated with an efficient model, and we explore broader applications in simple NLP tasks. Vinamra Benara, Chandan Singh, John X. Morris, Richard J. Antonello, Ion Stoica, Alexander G. Huth, Jianfeng Gao 0001 |
NeurIPS | 4 |
| 2023 | Scaling laws for language encoding models in fMRIabstractRepresentations from transformer-based unidirectional language models are known to be effective at predicting brain responses to natural language. However, most studies comparing language models to brains have used GPT-2 or similarly sized language models. Here we tested whether larger open-source models such as those from the OPT and LLaMA families are better at predicting brain responses recorded using fMRI. Mirroring scaling results from other contexts, we found that brain prediction performance scales logarithmically with model size from 125M to 30B parameter models, with ~15% increased encoding performance as measured by correlation with a held-out test set across 3 subjects. Similar log-linear behavior was observed when scaling the size of the fMRI training set. We also characterized scaling for acoustic encoding models that use HuBERT, WavLM, and Whisper, and we found comparable improvements with model size. A noise ceiling analysis of these large, high-performance encoding models showed that performance is nearing the theoretical maximum for brain areas such as the precuneus and higher auditory cortex. These results suggest that increasing scale in both models and data will yield incredibly effective models of language processing in the brain, enabling better scientific understanding as well as applications such as decoding. Richard J. Antonello, Aditya R. Vaidya, Alexander G. Huth |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2021 | Selecting Informative Contexts Improves Language Model Fine-tuningabstractRichard Antonello, Nicole Beckage, Javier Turek, Alexander Huth. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2021. Richard J. Antonello, Nicole Beckage, Javier Turek, Alexander G. Huth |
ACL/IJCNLP (1) | 1 |
| 2021 | Low-dimensional Structure in the Space of Language Representations is Reflected in Brain ResponsesabstractHow related are the representations learned by neural language models, translation models, and language tagging tasks? We answer this question by adapting an encoder-decoder transfer learning method from computer vision to investigate the structure among 100 different feature spaces extracted from hidden representations of various networks trained on language tasks.This method reveals a low-dimensional structure where language models and translation models smoothly interpolate between word embeddings, syntactic and semantic tasks, and future word embeddings. We call this low-dimensional structure a language representation embedding because it encodes the relationships between representations needed to process language for a variety of NLP tasks. We find that this representation embedding can predict how well each individual feature space maps to human brain responses to natural language stimuli recorded using fMRI. Additionally, we find that the principal dimension of this structure can be used to create a metric which highlights the brain's natural language processing hierarchy. This suggests that the embedding captures some part of the brain's natural language representation structure. Richard J. Antonello, Javier Turek, Vy A. Vo, Alexander G. Huth |
NeurIPS | 1 |