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

Emil Biju

dblp:280/0739 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author · 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 · 70% Efficient and distributed learning · 23% Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 7%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
chain-of-thought reasoning
0.912025
SPRINT: Enabling Interleaved Planning and Parallelized Execution in Reasoning Models · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
inference efficiency
0.912025
SPRINT: Enabling Interleaved Planning and Parallelized Execution in Reasoning Models · NeurIPS 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › decoding › decoding strategy
parallel decoding
0.912025
SPRINT: Enabling Interleaved Planning and Parallelized Execution in Reasoning Models · NeurIPS 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model
reasoning model
0.912025
SPRINT: Enabling Interleaved Planning and Parallelized Execution in Reasoning Models · NeurIPS 2025
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning
long-horizon planning
0.312025
SPRINT: Enabling Interleaved Planning and Parallelized Execution in Reasoning Models · NeurIPS 2025

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

post-training · 0.9fine-tuning · 0.9data curation · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 SPRINT: Enabling Interleaved Planning and Parallelized Execution in Reasoning Models
abstract
Large reasoning models (LRMs) excel at complex reasoning tasks but typically generate lengthy sequential chains-of-thought, resulting in long inference times before arriving at the final answer. To address this challenge, we introduce SPRINT, a novel post-training and inference-time framework designed to enable LRMs to dynamically identify and exploit opportunities for parallelization during their reasoning process. SPRINT incorporates an innovative data curation pipeline that reorganizes natural language reasoning trajectories into structured rounds of long-horizon planning and parallel execution. By fine-tuning LRMs on a small amount of such curated data, the models learn to dynamically identify independent subtasks within extended reasoning processes and effectively execute them in parallel. Through extensive evaluations, we demonstrate that models fine-tuned with the SPRINT framework match the performance of reasoning models on complex domains such as mathematics while generating up to 39% fewer sequential tokens on problems requiring more than 8,000 output tokens. Finally, we observe consistent results transferred to two out-of-distribution tasks, namely GPQA and Countdown, with up to 45% and 65% reduction in average sequential tokens respectively for longer reasoning trajectories, while matching the performance of the fine-tuned reasoning model.
Emil Biju, Shayan Talaei, Zhemin Huang 0001, Mohammadreza Pourreza, Azalia Mirhoseini, Amin Saberi
NeurIPS1
2022 Perturbation Analysis of Practical Algorithms for the Maximum Scatter Travelling Salesman Problem
abstract
The Maximum Scatter Traveling Salesman Problem (MSTSP) is a variant of the famous Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) and finds its use in several real-world applications including manufacturing, imaging and laser melting processes. The objective of this NP-hard problem is to maximize the cost of the least cost edge in a tour of an input graph. While several approximation algorithms have been proposed for this problem, many of them suffer from bad worst-case complexities and present challenges in scalability and practical use. Besides, these algorithms have often been designed and evaluated with a sole focus on theoretical approximation quality, while practical applications require detailed experimental evaluations to study the stability, quality and runtime over a large and diverse set of inputs. In this work, we describe six algorithms for MSTSP inspired by prior work in the area, along with improved formulations that enhance their utility in real-world scenarios. Further, we perform experimental studies motivated by smoothed analysis to comprehensively evaluate these algorithms on various performance metrics. We demonstrate that despite having bad worst-case complexities, certain algorithms perform exceedingly well in practical use cases. Our experiments reveal trade-offs among the runtime, quality and stability of different algorithms that must be considered when making a design choice depending on the objectives and constraints associated with the use of the algorithm.
Emil Biju, Sundar Raman P.
ALENEX1
2020 Joint Transformer/RNN Architecture for Gesture Typing in Indic Languages
abstract
Gesture typing is a method of typing words on a touch-based keyboard by creating a continuous trace passing through the relevant keys.This work is aimed at developing a keyboard that supports gesture typing in Indic languages.We begin by noting that when dealing with Indic languages, one needs to cater to two different sets of users: (i) users who prefer to type in the native Indic script (Devanagari, Bengali, etc.) and (ii) users who prefer to type in the English script but want the transliterated output in the native script.In both cases, we need a model that takes a trace as input and maps it to the intended word.To enable the development of these models, we create and release two datasets.First, we create a dataset containing keyboard traces for 193,658 words from 7 Indic languages.Second, we curate 104,412 English-Indic transliteration pairs from Wikidata across these languages.Using these datasets we build a model that performs path decoding, transliteration and transliteration correction.Unlike prior approaches, our proposed model does not make co-character independence assumptions during decoding.The overall accuracy of our model across the 7 languages varies from 70-95%.
Emil Biju, Anirudh Sriram, Mitesh M. Khapra
COLING1