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

Ananth Agarwal

dblp:334/1336 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as 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 · 1 first-author · 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% Trustworthy machine learning · 30%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.912025
Mechanisms vs. Outcomes: Probing for Syntax Fails to Explain Performance on Targeted Syntactic Evaluations · EMNLP 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model evaluation
syntactic evaluation
0.912025
Mechanisms vs. Outcomes: Probing for Syntax Fails to Explain Performance on Targeted Syntactic Evaluations · EMNLP 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › natural language understanding › sentence pair modeling
natural language inference
0.612022
Enhancing Self-Consistency and Performance of Pre-Trained Language Models through Natural Language Inference · EMNLP 2022
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
self-consistency
0.612022
Enhancing Self-Consistency and Performance of Pre-Trained Language Models through Natural Language Inference · EMNLP 2022

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

probing · 0.9skip · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Mechanisms vs. Outcomes: Probing for Syntax Fails to Explain Performance on Targeted Syntactic Evaluations
abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a robust mastery of syntax when processing and generating text.While this suggests internalized understanding of hierarchical syntax and dependency relations, the precise mechanism by which they represent syntactic structure is an open area within interpretability research.Probing provides one way to identify syntactic mechanisms linearly encoded in activations; however, no comprehensive study has yet established whether a model's probing accuracy reliably predicts its downstream syntactic performance.Adopting a "mechanisms vs. outcomes" framework, we evaluate 32 open-weight transformer models and find that syntactic features extracted via probing fail to predict outcomes of targeted syntax evaluations across English linguistic phenomena.Our results highlight a substantial disconnect between latent syntactic representations found via probing and observable syntactic behaviors in downstream tasks.
Ananth Agarwal, Jasper Jian, Christopher D. Manning, Shikhar Murty
EMNLP1
2022 Enhancing Self-Consistency and Performance of Pre-Trained Language Models through Natural Language Inference
abstract
Eric Mitchell, Joseph Noh, Siyan Li, Will Armstrong, Ananth Agarwal, Patrick Liu, Chelsea Finn, Christopher Manning. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2022.
Eric Mitchell, Joseph J. Noh, Siyan Li, William S. Armstrong, Ananth Agarwal, Patrick Liu, Chelsea Finn, Christopher D. Manning
EMNLP5