Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ananth Agarwal
dblp:334/1336
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | 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 |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | 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 |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | 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 |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Mechanisms vs. Outcomes: Probing for Syntax Fails to Explain Performance on Targeted Syntactic EvaluationsabstractLarge 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 |
EMNLP | 1 |
| 2022 | Enhancing Self-Consistency and Performance of Pre-Trained Language Models through Natural Language InferenceabstractEric 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 |
EMNLP | 5 |