Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sidharth Baskaran
dblp:389/9083
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
hypernetwork |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | HyperDAS: Towards Automating Mechanistic Interpretability with Hypernetworks · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | HyperDAS: Towards Automating Mechanistic Interpretability with Hypernetworks · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
mechanistic interpretability |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | HyperDAS: Towards Automating Mechanistic Interpretability with Hypernetworks · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
transformer |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | HyperDAS: Towards Automating Mechanistic Interpretability with Hypernetworks · ICLR 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
knowledge editing |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | 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 |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Rebuilding ROME : Resolving Model Collapse during Sequential Model Editing · EMNLP 2024 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
model collapse |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | HyperDAS: Towards Automating Mechanistic Interpretability with HypernetworksabstractMechanistic 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 |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2024 | Rebuilding ROME : Resolving Model Collapse during Sequential Model EditingabstractRecent 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 |
EMNLP | 2 |