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

Sidharth Baskaran

dblp:389/9083 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 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
2 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 33% Deep learning architectures and training · 33% Language models and text generation · 29%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
hypernetwork
0.912025
HyperDAS: Towards Automating Mechanistic Interpretability with Hypernetworks · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.912025
HyperDAS: Towards Automating Mechanistic Interpretability with Hypernetworks · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
mechanistic interpretability
0.912025
HyperDAS: Towards Automating Mechanistic Interpretability with Hypernetworks · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
transformer
0.912025
HyperDAS: Towards Automating Mechanistic Interpretability with Hypernetworks · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
knowledge editing
0.812024
Rebuilding ROME : Resolving Model Collapse during Sequential Model Editing · EMNLP 2024
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › knowledge editing
sequential model editing
0.812024
Rebuilding ROME : Resolving Model Collapse during Sequential Model Editing · EMNLP 2024
Machine learning › Generative modeling
model collapse
0.212024
Rebuilding ROME : Resolving Model Collapse during Sequential Model Editing · EMNLP 2024

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

distributed alignment search · 0.9counterfactual supervision · 0.9r-ROME · 0.8layer selection · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 HyperDAS: Towards Automating Mechanistic Interpretability with Hypernetworks
abstract
Mechanistic interpretability has made great strides in identifying neural network features (e.g., directions in hidden activation space) that mediate concepts (e.g., *the birth year of a Nobel laureate*) and enable predictable manipulation. Distributed alignment search (DAS) leverages supervision from counterfactual data to learn concept features within hidden states, but DAS assumes we can afford to conduct a brute force search over potential feature locations. To address this, we present HyperDAS, a transformer-based hypernetwork architecture that (1) automatically locates the token-positions of the residual stream that a concept is realized in and (2) learns features of those residual stream vectors for the concept. In experiments with Llama3-8B, HyperDAS achieves state-of-the-art performance on the RAVEL benchmark for disentangling concepts in hidden states. In addition, we review the design decisions we made to mitigate the concern that HyperDAS (like all powerful interpretabilty methods) might inject new information into the target model rather than faithfully interpreting it.
Jiuding Sun, Jing Huang 0014, Sidharth Baskaran, Karel D'Oosterlinck, Christopher Potts, Michael Sklar, Atticus Geiger
ICLR3
2024 Rebuilding ROME : Resolving Model Collapse during Sequential Model Editing
abstract
Recent work using Rank-One Model Editing (ROME), a popular model editing method, has shown that there are certain facts that the algorithm is unable to edit without breaking the model.Such edits have previously been called disabling edits (Gupta et al., 2024a).These disabling edits cause immediate model collapse and limits the use of ROME for sequential editing.In this paper, we show that disabling edits are an artifact of irregularities in the implementation of ROME.With this paper, we provide a more stable implementation ROME, which we call r-ROME and show that model collapse is no longer observed when making large scale sequential edits with r-ROME, while further improving generalization and locality of model editing compared to the original implementation of ROME.
Akshat Gupta, Sidharth Baskaran, Gopala Krishna Anumanchipalli
EMNLP2