Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Udeepa Meepegama
dblp:242/7754
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · unresolved
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 |
Language models and text generation · 70% Speech recognition and synthesis · 15% Representation and self-supervised learning · 15% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model evaluation › automatic evaluation
learned evaluation metric |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Generative Pretraining for Paraphrase Evaluation · ACL (1) 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › text generation evaluation
paraphrase evaluation |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Generative Pretraining for Paraphrase Evaluation · ACL (1) 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › text generation
paraphrase generation |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Generative Pretraining for Paraphrase Evaluation · ACL (1) 2022 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
text generation |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Generative Pretraining for Paraphrase Evaluation · ACL (1) 2022 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
contrastive learning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Learning de-identified representations of prosody from raw audio · ICML 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
representation learning · 0.6generative pre-training · 0.6product quantization · 0.5minimum description length probing · 0.5contrastive self-supervised learning · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Generative Pretraining for Paraphrase EvaluationabstractWe introduce ParaBLEU, a paraphrase representation learning model and evaluation metric for text generation.Unlike previous approaches, ParaBLEU learns to understand paraphrasis using generative conditioning as a pretraining objective.ParaBLEU correlates more strongly with human judgements than existing metrics, obtaining new state-of-the-art results on the 2017 WMT Metrics Shared Task.We show that our model is robust to data scarcity, exceeding previous state-of-the-art performance using only 50% of the available training data and surpassing BLEU, ROUGE and METEOR with only 40 labelled examples.Finally, we demonstrate that ParaBLEU can be used to conditionally generate novel paraphrases from a single demonstration, which we use to confirm our hypothesis that it learns abstract, generalized paraphrase representations. Jack Weston, Raphael Lenain, Udeepa Meepegama, Emil Fristed |
ACL (1) | 3 |
| 2021 | Learning de-identified representations of prosody from raw audioabstractWe propose a method for learning de-identified prosody representations from raw audio using a contrastive self-supervised signal. Whereas prior work has relied on conditioning models with bottlenecks, we introduce a set of inductive biases that exploit the natural structure of prosody to minimize timbral information and decouple prosody from speaker representations. Despite aggressive downsampling of the input and having no access to linguistic information, our model performs comparably to state-of-the-art speech representations on DAMMP, a new benchmark we introduce for spoken language understanding. We use minimum description length probing to show that our representations have selectively learned the subcomponents of non-timbral prosody, and that the product quantizer naturally disentangles them without using bottlenecks. We derive an information-theoretic definition of speech de-identifiability and use it to demonstrate that our prosody representations are less identifiable than the other speech representations. Jack Weston, Raphael Lenain, Udeepa Meepegama, Emil Fristed |
ICML | 3 |