Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Yanick Zengaffinen
dblp:420/4796
· DBLP profile ↗
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 |
Language models and text generation · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Logic in computer science · 100% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Logic in computer science
logic programming |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Are Language Models Efficient Reasoners? A Perspective from Logic Programming · NeurIPS 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
proof alignment · 1.7logic programming · 1.7dataset construction · 1.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Are Language Models Efficient Reasoners? A Perspective from Logic ProgrammingabstractModern language models (LMs) exhibit strong deductive reasoning capabilities, yet standard evaluations emphasize correctness while overlooking a key aspect of reasoning: *efficiency*. In real-world reasoning scenarios, much of the available information is irrelevant, and effective deductive inference requires identifying and ignoring such distractions. We propose a framework for assessing LM reasoning efficiency through the lens of logic programming, introducing a simple method to align proofs written in natural language---as generated by an LM---with shortest proofs found by executing the logic program. Efficiency is quantified by measuring how well a model avoids unnecessary inference. Empirically, we construct a dataset of math word problems injected with various number of irrelevant axioms that vary in semantic overlap with the goal theorem. We find that current LMs show marked accuracy declines under such conditions---even with minimal, domain-consistent distractions---and the proofs they generate frequently exhibit detours through irrelevant inferences. Andreas Opedal, Yanick Zengaffinen, Haruki Shirakami, Clemente Pasti, Mrinmaya Sachan, Abulhair Saparov, Ryan Cotterell, Bernhard Schölkopf |
NeurIPS | 2 |