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

Matthew Shu

dblp:371/0966 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0007-7832-2121ORCID · corroborated

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-author · 3 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.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
3 papers
Learning and educational technologies · 79% Human-AI interaction · 21%
Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 46% Language models and text generation · 40% Trustworthy machine learning · 14%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
plan generation
0.912025
A Good Plan is Hard to Find: Aligning Models with Preferences is Misaligned with What Helps Users · EMNLP 2025
Human-AI interaction › human-centered AI
preference alignment
0.912025
A Good Plan is Hard to Find: Aligning Models with Preferences is Misaligned with What Helps Users · EMNLP 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model
0.812024
A SMART Mnemonic Sounds like "Glue Tonic": Mixing LLMs with Student Feedback to Make Mnemonic Learning Stick · EMNLP 2024
Learning and educational technologies › student knowledge modeling
knowledge tracing
0.812024
KARL: Knowledge-Aware Retrieval and Representations aid Retention and Learning in Students · EMNLP 2024
Learning and educational technologies
student modeling
0.812024
KARL: Knowledge-Aware Retrieval and Representations aid Retention and Learning in Students · EMNLP 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.312025
A Good Plan is Hard to Find: Aligning Models with Preferences is Misaligned with What Helps Users · EMNLP 2025
Information retrieval
retrieval models
0.212024
KARL: Knowledge-Aware Retrieval and Representations aid Retention and Learning in Students · EMNLP 2024
Learning and educational technologies › educational assessment
student feedback
0.212024
A SMART Mnemonic Sounds like "Glue Tonic": Mixing LLMs with Student Feedback to Make Mnemonic Learning Stick · EMNLP 2024

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

preference alignment · 1.7large language model · 1.5deep knowledge tracing · 1.5BERT · 1.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 A Good Plan is Hard to Find: Aligning Models with Preferences is Misaligned with What Helps Users
abstract
Nishant Balepur, Matthew Shu, Yoo Yeon Sung, Seraphina Goldfarb-Tarrant, Shi Feng, Fumeng Yang, Rachel Rudinger, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2025.
Nishant Balepur, Matthew Shu, Yoo Yeon Sung, Seraphina Goldfarb-Tarrant, Shi Feng 0005, Fumeng Yang, Rachel Rudinger, Jordan L. Boyd-Graber
EMNLP2
2024 A SMART Mnemonic Sounds like "Glue Tonic": Mixing LLMs with Student Feedback to Make Mnemonic Learning Stick
abstract
Nishant Balepur, Matthew Shu, Alexander Hoyle, Alison Robey, Shi Feng, Seraphina Goldfarb-Tarrant, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2024.
Nishant Balepur, Matthew Shu, Alexander Miserlis Hoyle, Alison Robey, Shi Feng 0005, Seraphina Goldfarb-Tarrant, Jordan L. Boyd-Graber
EMNLP2
2024 KARL: Knowledge-Aware Retrieval and Representations aid Retention and Learning in Students
abstract
Flashcard schedulers rely on 1) student models to predict the flashcards a student knows; and 2) teaching policies to pick which cards to show next via these predictions.Prior student models, however, just use study data like the student's past responses, ignoring the text on cards.We propose content-aware scheduling, the first schedulers exploiting flashcard content.To give the first evidence that such schedulers enhance student learning, we build KAR 3 L, a simple but effective content-aware student model employing deep knowledge tracing (DKT), retrieval, and BERT to predict student recall.We train KAR 3 L by collecting a new dataset of 123,143 study logs on diverse trivia questions.KAR 3 L bests existing student models in AUC and calibration error.To ensure our improved predictions lead to better student learning, we create a novel delta-based teaching policy to deploy KAR 3 L online.Based on 32 study paths from 27 users, KAR 3 L improves learning efficiency over SOTA, showing KAR 3 L's strength and encouraging researchers to look beyond historical study data to fully capture student abilities.1 * Equal contribution.
Matthew Shu, Nishant Balepur, Shi Feng 0005, Jordan L. Boyd-Graber
EMNLP1