VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Julius Monsen
dblp:330/5878
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 3 first-author · 4 since 2021Theory of computation · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | ASP-Driven Visual Commonsense: A General Framework for Reasoning About Embodied Interaction in the WildabstractWe present a general framework for declaratively grounded visual commonsense (reasoning) about embodied interaction in naturalistic, in-the-wild settings relevant to a range of AI application domains. The core computational capabilities of the framework pertaining visual commonsense are driven by a robust neurosymbolic architecture primarily consisting of: (1) answer set programming based modelling of foundational aspects pertaining spatio-temporal dynamics, encompassing space, time, events, action, motion; (2) modularly integrated visual computing techniques constituting the neural substrate linking quantitative perceptual features serving as low-level counterparts to high-level semantic characterisations of (inter)active visual commonsense. Practically, we also present a first open-release of the developed framework with the aim to promote independent extensions and real-world applied KRR. The release comprises: (a) demonstrated case-studies in domains such as autonomous driving, psychology and media studies; (b) systematic evaluation mechanisms for community benchmarking; and (c) supporting material such as tutorials and datasets. Jakob Suchan, Mehul Bhatt, Julius Monsen |
KR | 3 |
| 2025 | Probabilistic Answer Set Programming Driven Ranking of Dynamic Space-Time Belief Models
Julius Monsen, Jakob Suchan, Mehul Bhatt |
RuleML+RR | 1 |
| 2024 | Controllable Sentence Simplification in Swedish Using Control Prefixes and Mined ParaphrasesabstractMaking information accessible to diverse target audiences, including individuals with dyslexia and cognitive disabilities, is crucial. Automatic Text Simplification (ATS) systems aim to facilitate readability and comprehension by reducing linguistic complexity. However, they often lack customizability to specific user needs, and training data for smaller languages can be scarce. This paper addresses ATS in a Swedish context, using methods that provide more control over the simplification. A dataset of Swedish paraphrases is mined from large amounts of text and used to train ATS models utilizing prefix-tuning with control prefixes. We also introduce a novel data-driven method for selecting complexity attributes for controlling the simplification and compare it with previous approaches. Evaluation of the trained models using SARI and BLEU demonstrates significant improvements over the baseline — a fine-tuned Swedish BART model — and compared to previous Swedish ATS results. These findings highlight the effectiveness of employing paraphrase data in conjunction with controllable generation mechanisms for simplification. Additionally, the set of explored attributes yields similar results compared to previously used attributes, indicating their ability to capture important simplification aspects. Julius Monsen, Arne Jönsson |
LREC/COLING | 1 |
| 2022 | Perceived Text Quality and Readability in Extractive and Abstractive SummariesabstractWe present results from a study investigating how users perceive text quality and readability in extractive and abstractive summaries. We trained two summarisation models on Swedish news data and used these to produce summaries of articles. With the produced summaries, we conducted an online survey in which the extractive summaries were compared to the abstractive summaries in terms of fluency, adequacy and simplicity. We found statistically significant differences in perceived fluency and adequacy between abstractive and extractive summaries but no statistically significant difference in simplicity. Extractive summaries were preferred in most cases, possibly due to the types of errors the summaries tend to have. Julius Monsen, Evelina Rennes |
LREC | 1 |