Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jonathan Graehl
dblp:06/4173
· DBLP profile ↗
9ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
0009-0008-0255-0811ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 8 · 2 first-authorTheory of computation · 1
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.
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Automata and formal languages · 100% | |
| Artificial intelligence
2 papers |
Machine translation · 90% Language models and text generation · 10% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Automata and formal languages
tree transducers |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | The Power of Extended Top-Down Tree Transducers · SIAM J. Comput. 2009 |
Automata and formal languages › transductions
tree transformations |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | The Power of Extended Top-Down Tree Transducers · SIAM J. Comput. 2009 |
Natural language and speech › Machine translation
statistical machine translation |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | Scalable Inference and Training of Context-Rich Syntactic Translation Models · ACL 2006 |
Natural language and speech › Machine translation
syntax-based machine translation |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | Scalable Inference and Training of Context-Rich Syntactic Translation Models · ACL 2006 |
Natural language and speech › Machine translation › transliteration
back-transliteration |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Machine Transliteration · ACL 1997 |
Natural language and speech › Machine translation
transliteration |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Machine Transliteration · ACL 1997 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
transducer composition · 0.1formal language theory · 0.1minimum error rate training · 0.1BLEU · 0.1generative model · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | hyp: A Toolkit for Representing, Manipulating, and Optimizing HypergraphsabstractWe present hyp, an open-source toolkit for the representation, manipulation, and optimization of weighted directed hypergraphs. hyp provides compose, project, invert functionality, k-best path algorithms, the inside and outside algorithms, and more. Finite-state machines are modeled as a special case of directed hypergraphs. hyp consists of a C++ API, as well as a command line tool, and is available for download at github.com/sdl-research/hyp. Markus Dreyer, Jonathan Graehl |
HLT-NAACL | 2 |
| 2010 | Bayesian Inference for Finite-State Transducers
David Chiang 0001, Jonathan Graehl, Kevin Knight, Adam Pauls, Sujith Ravi |
HLT-NAACL | 2 |
| 2009 | The Power of Extended Top-Down Tree TransducersabstractExtended top-down tree transducers (transducteurs généralisés descendants; see [A. Arnold and M. Dauchet, Bi-transductions de forêts, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1976, pp. 74–86]) received renewed interest in the field of natural language processing. Here those transducers are extensively and systematically studied. Their main properties are identified and their relation to classical top-down tree transducers is exactly characterized. The obtained properties completely explain the Hasse diagram of the induced classes of tree transformations. In addition, it is shown that most interesting classes of transformations computed by extended top-down tree transducers are not closed under composition. Andreas Maletti, Jonathan Graehl, Mark Hopkins, Kevin Knight |
SIAM J. Comput. | 2 |
| 2008 | Training Tree TransducersabstractMany probabilistic models for natural language are now written in terms of hierarchical tree structure. Tree-based modeling still lacks many of the standard tools taken for granted in (finite-state) string-based modeling. The theory of tree transducer automata provides a possible framework to draw on, as it has been worked out in an extensive literature. We motivate the use of tree transducers for natural language and address the training problem for probabilistic tree-to-tree and tree-to-string transducers. Jonathan Graehl, Kevin Knight, Jonathan May |
Comput. Linguistics | 1 |
| 2006 | Scalable Inference and Training of Context-Rich Syntactic Translation ModelsabstractStatistical MT has made great progress in the last few years, but current translation models are weak on re-ordering and target language fluency. Syntactic approaches seek to remedy these problems. In this paper, we take the framework for acquiring multi-level syntactic translation rules of (Galley et al., 2004) from aligned tree-string pairs, and present two main extensions of their approach: first, instead of merely computing a single derivation that minimally explains a sentence pair, we construct a large number of derivations that include contextually richer rules, and account for multiple interpretations of unaligned words. Second, we propose probability estimates and a training procedure for weighting these rules. We contrast different approaches on real examples, show that our estimates based on multiple derivations favor phrasal re-orderings that are linguistically better motivated, and establish that our larger rules provide a 3.63 BLEU point increase over minimal rules. Michel Galley, Jonathan Graehl, Kevin Knight, Daniel Marcu, Steve DeNeefe, Wei Wang 0006, Ignacio Thayer |
ACL | 2 |
| 2005 | An Overview of Probabilistic Tree Transducers for Natural Language Processing
Kevin Knight, Jonathan Graehl |
CICLing | 2 |
| 2004 | Training Tree Transducers
Jonathan Graehl, Kevin Knight |
HLT-NAACL | 1 |
| 1998 | Machine Transliteration
Kevin Knight, Jonathan Graehl |
Comput. Linguistics | 2 |
| 1997 | Machine TransliterationabstractIt is challenging to translate names and technical terms across languages with different alphabets and sound inventories. These items are commonly transliterated, i.e., replaced with approximate phonetic equivalents. For example, computer in English comes out as (konpyuutaa) in Japanese. Translating such items from Japanese back to English is even more challenging, and of practical interest, as transliterated items make up the bulk of text phrases not found in bilingual dictionaries. We describe and evaluate a method for performing backwards transliterations by machine. This method uses a generative model, incorporating several distinct stages in the transliteration process. Kevin Knight, Jonathan Graehl |
ACL | 2 |