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

Ishita Dasgupta 0003

dblp:412/9552 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 70% Language models and text generation · 30%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › Data-centric AI
data attribution
0.912025
DATE-LM: Benchmarking Data Attribution Evaluation for Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model
0.912025
DATE-LM: Benchmarking Data Attribution Evaluation for Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
training data attribution
0.912025
DATE-LM: Benchmarking Data Attribution Evaluation for Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.312025
DATE-LM: Benchmarking Data Attribution Evaluation for Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025

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

leaderboard · 0.9benchmark evaluation · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 DATE-LM: Benchmarking Data Attribution Evaluation for Large Language Models
abstract
Data attribution methods quantify the influence of training data on model outputs and are becoming increasingly relevant for a wide range of LLM research and applications, including dataset curation, model interpretability, data valuation. However, there remain critical gaps in systematic LLM-centric evaluation of data attribution methods. To this end, we introduce DATE-LM (Data Attribution Evaluation in Language Models), a unified benchmark for evaluating data attribution methods through real-world LLM applications. DATE-LM measures attribution quality through three key tasks — training data selection, toxicity/bias filtering, and factual attribution. Our benchmark is designed for ease of use, enabling researchers to configure and run large-scale evaluations across diverse tasks and LLM architectures. Furthermore, we use DATE-LM to conduct a large-scale evaluation of existing data attribution methods. Our findings show that no single method dominates across all tasks, data attribution methods have trade-offs with simpler baselines, and method performance is sensitive to task-specific evaluation design. Finally, we release a public leaderboard for quick comparison of methods and to facilitate community engagement. We hope DATE-LM serves as a foundation for future data attribution research in LLMs.
Cathy Jiao, Yijun Pan, Emily Xiao, Daisy Sheng, Niket Jain, Hanzhang Zhao, Ishita Dasgupta 0003, Jiaqi W. Ma, Chenyan Xiong
NeurIPS7