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

Jasper Jian

dblp:334/7860 · 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
Information extraction and text analysis · 53% Trustworthy machine learning · 23% Language models and text generation · 23%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, 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 › Information extraction and text analysis
syntactic parsing
0.712023
Syntactic Substitutability as Unsupervised Dependency Syntax · EMNLP 2023
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › syntactic parsing
syntactic structure induction
0.712023
Syntactic Substitutability as Unsupervised Dependency Syntax · EMNLP 2023
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › syntactic parsing › dependency parsing
unsupervised dependency parsing
0.712023
Syntactic Substitutability as Unsupervised Dependency Syntax · EMNLP 2023

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

probing · 0.9syntactic substitutability · 0.7attention distribution analysis · 0.7
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
EMNLP2
2023 Syntactic Substitutability as Unsupervised Dependency Syntax
abstract
Syntax is a latent hierarchical structure which underpins the robust and compositional nature of human language.In this work, we explore the hypothesis that syntactic dependencies can be represented in language model attention distributions and propose a new method to induce these structures theory-agnostically.Instead of modeling syntactic relations as defined by annotation schemata, we model a more general property implicit in the definition of dependency relations, syntactic substitutability.This property captures the fact that words at either end of a dependency can be substituted with words from the same category.Substitutions can be used to generate a set of syntactically invariant sentences whose representations are then used for parsing.We show that increasing the number of substitutions used improves parsing accuracy on natural data.On longdistance subject-verb agreement constructions, our method achieves 79.5% recall compared to 8.9% using a previous method.Our method also provides improvements when transferred to a different parsing setup, demonstrating that it generalizes.
Jasper Jian, Siva Reddy
EMNLP1