Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Matthew Finlayson
dblp:55/3614
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
3as first author
7since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0001-2906-816XORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 3 first-author · 7 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
6 papers |
Language models and text generation · 89% Trustworthy machine learning · 11% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Automata and formal languages · 100% |
Topics — the 15 heaviest of 17, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
decoding |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Closing the Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration · ICLR 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › decoding
nucleus sampling |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Closing the Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration · ICLR 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › language modeling
softmax bottleneck |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Closing the Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration · ICLR 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › decoding › decoding strategy
truncation sampling |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Closing the Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration · ICLR 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › natural language understanding › question answering
multiple-choice question answering |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Increasing Probability Mass on Answer Choices Does Not Always Improve Accuracy · EMNLP 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
prompting |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Decomposed Prompting: A Modular Approach for Solving Complex Tasks · ICLR 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
instruction following |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | What Makes Instruction Learning Hard? An Investigation and a New Challenge in a Synthetic Environment · EMNLP 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
instruction learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | What Makes Instruction Learning Hard? An Investigation and a New Challenge in a Synthetic Environment · EMNLP 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
mathematical reasoning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | LILA: A Unified Benchmark for Mathematical Reasoning · EMNLP 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › evaluation of language models › reasoning evaluation
mathematical reasoning benchmark |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | LILA: A Unified Benchmark for Mathematical Reasoning · EMNLP 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
causal analysis |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Causal Analysis of Syntactic Agreement Mechanisms in Neural Language Models · ACL/IJCNLP (1) 2021 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Causal Analysis of Syntactic Agreement Mechanisms in Neural Language Models · ACL/IJCNLP (1) 2021 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model evaluation |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | LILA: A Unified Benchmark for Mathematical Reasoning · EMNLP 2022 |
Automata and formal languages
regular languages |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | What Makes Instruction Learning Hard? An Investigation and a New Challenge in a Synthetic Environment · EMNLP 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
neural language model |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Causal Analysis of Syntactic Agreement Mechanisms in Neural Language Models · ACL/IJCNLP (1) 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
synthetic environment · 1.1fine-tuning · 1.1truncation sampling · 0.8nucleus sampling · 0.8probability normalization · 0.7mathematical formalism · 0.7chain-of-thought prompting · 0.6benchmarking · 0.6probing · 0.5causal mediation analysis · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Better Language Model Inversion by Compactly Representing Next-Token DistributionsabstractLanguage model inversion seeks to recover hidden prompts using only language model outputs. This capability has implications for security and accountability in language model deployments, such as leaking private information from an API-protected language model’s system message. We propose a new method – prompt inversion from logprob sequences (PILS) – that recovers hidden prompts by gleaning clues from the model’s next-token probabilities over the course of multiple generation steps. Our method is enabled by a key insight: The vector-valued outputs of a language model occupy a low-dimensional subspace. This enables us to losslessly compress the full next-token probability distribution over multiple generation steps using a linear map, allowing more output information to be used for inversion. Our approach yields massive gains over previous state-of-the-art methods for recovering hidden prompts, achieving 2–3.5 times higher exact recovery rates across test sets, in one case increasing the recovery rate from 17% to 60%. Our method also exhibits surprisingly good generalization behavior; for instance, an inverter trained on 16 generations steps gets 5–27% higher prompt recovery when we increase the number of steps to 32 at test time. Furthermore, we demonstrate strong performance of our method on the more challenging task of recovering hidden system messages. We also analyze the role of verbatim repetition in prompt recovery and propose a new method for cross-family model transfer for logit-based inverters. Our findings suggest that next-token probabilities are a considerably more vulnerable attack surface for inversion attacks than previously known. Murtaza Nazir, Matthew Finlayson, John X. Morris, Xiang Ren 0001, Swabha Swayamdipta |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2024 | Closing the Curious Case of Neural Text DegenerationabstractDespite their ubiquity in language generation, it remains unknown why truncation sampling heuristics like nucleus sampling are so effective. We provide a theoretical explanation for the effectiveness of the truncation sampling by proving that truncation methods that discard tokens below some probability threshold (the most common type of truncation) can guarantee that all sampled tokens have nonzero true probability. However, thresholds are a coarse heuristic, and necessarily discard some tokens with nonzero true probability as well. In pursuit of a more precise sampling strategy, we show that we can leverage a known source of model errors, the softmax bottleneck, to prove that certain tokens have nonzero true probability, without relying on a threshold. Based on our findings, we develop an experimental truncation strategy and the present pilot studies demonstrating the promise of this type of algorithm. Our evaluations show that our method outperforms its threshold-based counterparts under automatic and human evaluation metrics for low-entropy (i.e., close to greedy) open-ended text generation. Our theoretical findings and pilot experiments provide both insight into why truncation sampling works, and make progress toward more expressive sampling algorithms that better surface the generative capabilities of large language models. Matthew Finlayson, John Hewitt, Alexander Koller, Swabha Swayamdipta, Ashish Sabharwal |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2023 | Increasing Probability Mass on Answer Choices Does Not Always Improve AccuracyabstractWhen pretrained language models (LMs) are applied to discriminative tasks such as multiplechoice questions, they place probability mass on vocabulary tokens that aren't among the given answer choices.Spreading probability mass across multiple surface forms with identical meaning (such as "bath" and "bathtub") is thought to cause an underestimation of a model's true performance, referred to as the "surface form competition" (SFC) hypothesis.This has motivated the introduction of various probability normalization methods.However, many core questions remain unanswered.How do we measure SFC? Are there direct ways of reducing it, and does doing so improve task performance?We propose a mathematical formalism for SFC which allows us to quantify and bound its impact for the first time.We identify a simple method for reducing it-namely, increasing probability mass on the given answer choices by a) including them in the prompt and b) using in-context learning with even just one example.We show this method eliminates the impact of SFC in the majority of instances.Our experiments on three diverse datasets and six LMs reveal several additional surprising findings.For example, both normalization and prompting methods for reducing SFC can be ineffective or even detrimental to task performance for some LMs.We conclude with practical insights for effectively prompting LMs for multiple-choice tasks. 1 * Work done at AI2. 1 Code available at https://github.com/allenai/ revisiting_surface_form_competition. Sarah Wiegreffe, Matthew Finlayson, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, Ashish Sabharwal |
EMNLP | 2 |
| 2023 | Decomposed Prompting: A Modular Approach for Solving Complex Tasks
Tushar Khot, Harsh Trivedi, Matthew Finlayson, Kyle Richardson 0001, Peter Clark, Ashish Sabharwal |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2022 | What Makes Instruction Learning Hard? An Investigation and a New Challenge in a Synthetic EnvironmentabstractThe instruction learning paradigm-where a model learns to perform new tasks from task descriptions alone-has become popular in research on general-purpose models.The capabilities of large transformer models as instruction learners, however, remain poorly understood.We use a controlled synthetic environment to characterize such capabilities.Specifically, we use the task of deciding whether a given string matches a regular expression (viewed as an instruction) to identify properties of tasks, instructions, and instances that make instruction learning challenging.For instance, we find that our model, a fine-tuned T5-based text2text transformer, struggles with large regular languages, suggesting that less precise instructions are challenging for models.Instruction executions that require tracking longer contexts of prior steps are also difficult.We use our findings to systematically construct a challenging instruction learning dataset, which we call Hard RegSet.Fine-tuning on Hard RegSet, our large transformer learns to correctly interpret (with at least 90% accuracy) only 65.6% of test instructions, and 11%-24% of the instructions in out-of-distribution generalization settings.We thus propose Hard RegSet as a challenging instruction learning dataset, and a controlled environment for studying instruction learning.1 Matthew Finlayson, Kyle Richardson 0001, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark |
EMNLP | 1 |
| 2022 | LILA: A Unified Benchmark for Mathematical ReasoningabstractSwaroop Mishra, Matthew Finlayson, Pan Lu, Leonard Tang, Sean Welleck, Chitta Baral, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Oyvind Tafjord, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, Ashwin Kalyan. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2022. Swaroop Mishra, Matthew Finlayson, Pan Lu, Leonard Tang, Sean Welleck, Chitta Baral, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Oyvind Tafjord, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, Ashwin Kalyan |
EMNLP | 2 |
| 2021 | Causal Analysis of Syntactic Agreement Mechanisms in Neural Language ModelsabstractMatthew Finlayson, Aaron Mueller, Sebastian Gehrmann, Stuart Shieber, Tal Linzen, Yonatan Belinkov. 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. Matthew Finlayson, Aaron Mueller, Sebastian Gehrmann, Stuart M. Shieber, Tal Linzen, Yonatan Belinkov |
ACL/IJCNLP (1) | 1 |