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

Franklin Ma

dblp:420/4648 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · conflict

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 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
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 77% Language models and text generation · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
metalinguistic reasoning
0.912025
LingGym: How Far Are LLMs from Thinking Like Field Linguists? · EMNLP 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model
0.312025
LingGym: How Far Are LLMs from Thinking Like Field Linguists? · EMNLP 2025

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

benchmark evaluation · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 LingGym: How Far Are LLMs from Thinking Like Field Linguists?
abstract
This paper introduces LINGGYM, a new benchmark that evaluates LLMs' capacity for metalinguistic reasoning using Interlinear Glossed Text (IGT) and grammatical descriptions extracted from 18 typologically diverse reference grammars.Unlike previous work that focuses on specific downstream tasks, we assess whether LLMs can generalize linguistic inference across low-resource languages and structures not seen during training.We present a controlled evaluation task: Word-Gloss Inference, in which the model must infer a missing word and gloss from context using varying levels of linguistic information (e.g., glosses, grammatical explanations, translations).Our results show that incorporating structured linguistic cues leads to consistent improvements in reasoning performance across all models.This work highlights both the promise and current limitations of using LLMs for typologically informed linguistic analysis and low-resource language documentation.
Changbing Yang, Franklin Ma, Freda Shi
EMNLP2