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

Matthew Wilkens

dblp:222/8742 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0001-6749-9318ORCID · corroborated

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 3 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
Information extraction and text analysis · 75% Language models and text generation · 25%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model evaluation
0.712023
Modeling Legal Reasoning: LM Annotation at the Edge of Human Agreement · EMNLP 2023
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › document understanding › legal text analysis
legal text classification
0.712023
Modeling Legal Reasoning: LM Annotation at the Edge of Human Agreement · EMNLP 2023
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
narrative understanding
0.712023
Grounding Characters and Places in Narrative Text · ACL (1) 2023
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
text classification
0.712023
Modeling Legal Reasoning: LM Annotation at the Edge of Human Agreement · EMNLP 2023

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

prompting · 0.7fine-tuning · 0.7contextual embeddings · 0.7LEGAL-BERT · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Disentangling language change: sparse autoencoders quantify the semantic evolution of indigeneity in French
abstract
Jacob A. Matthews, Laurent Dubreuil, Imane Terhmina, Yunci Sun, Matthew Wilkens, Marten Van Schijndel. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025.
Jacob Matthews, Laurent Dubreuil, Imane Terhmina, Yunci Sun, Matthew Wilkens, Marten van Schijndel
NAACL (Long Papers)5
2023 Grounding Characters and Places in Narrative Text
abstract
Tracking characters and locations throughout a story can help improve the understanding of its plot structure.Prior research has analyzed characters and locations from text independently without grounding characters to their locations in narrative time.Here, we address this gap by proposing a new spatial relationship categorization task.The objective of the task is to assign a spatial relationship category for every character and location co-mention within a window of text, taking into consideration linguistic context, narrative tense, and temporal scope.To this end, we annotate spatial relationships in approximately 2500 book excerpts and train a model using contextual embeddings as features to predict these relationships.When applied to a set of books, this model allows us to test several hypotheses on mobility and domestic space, revealing that protagonists are more mobile than non-central characters and that women as characters tend to occupy more interior space than men.Overall, our work is the first step towards joint modeling and analysis of characters and places in narrative text.
Sandeep Soni, Amanpreet Sihra, Elizabeth F. Evans, Matthew Wilkens, David Bamman
ACL (1)4
2023 Modeling Legal Reasoning: LM Annotation at the Edge of Human Agreement
abstract
Generative language models (LMs) are increasingly used for document class-prediction tasks and promise enormous improvements in cost and efficiency.Existing research often examines simple classification tasks, but the capability of LMs to classify on complex or specialized tasks is less well understood.We consider a highly complex task that is challenging even for humans: the classification of legal reasoning according to jurisprudential philosophy.Using a novel dataset of historical United States Supreme Court opinions annotated by a team of domain experts, we systematically test the performance of a variety of LMs.We find that generative models perform poorly when given instructions (i.e.prompts) equal to the instructions presented to human annotators through our codebook.Our strongest results derive from fine-tuning models on the annotated dataset; the best performing model is an in-domain model, LEGAL-BERT.We apply predictions from this fine-tuned model to study historical trends in jurisprudence, an exercise that both aligns with prominent qualitative historical accounts and points to areas of possible refinement in those accounts.Our findings generally sound a note of caution in the use of generative LMs on complex tasks without finetuning and point to the continued relevance of human annotation-intensive classification methods.
Rosamond Elizabeth Thalken, Edward H. Stiglitz, David M. Mimno, Matthew Wilkens
EMNLP4