VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Anthony Fader
dblp:43/106
· DBLP profile ↗
9ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 8 · 4 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2 · 1 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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.
| Artificial intelligence
6 papers |
Question answering and dialogue systems · 53% Information extraction and text analysis · 24% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 10% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers |
Knowledge graphs · 60% Information retrieval · 40% |
Topics — the 13 heaviest of 16, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems
open-domain question answering |
0.4 | 2 | 2014 | Open question answering over curated and extracted knowledge bases · KDD 2014 Paraphrase-Driven Learning for Open Question Answering · ACL (1) 2013 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
open information extraction |
0.2 | 2 | 2011 | Open Information Extraction: The Second Generation · IJCAI 2011 Identifying Relations for Open Information Extraction · EMNLP 2011 |
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems
knowledge base question answering |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Open question answering over curated and extracted knowledge bases · KDD 2014 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › commonsense reasoning
commonsense knowledge |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Open Information Extraction: The Second Generation · IJCAI 2011 |
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems › knowledge-intensive question answering
knowledge-based question answering |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Open Information Extraction: The Second Generation · IJCAI 2011 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
relation extraction |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Identifying Relations for Open Information Extraction · EMNLP 2011 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › Data-centric AI › data influence
influence estimation |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | MavenRank: Identifying Influential Members of the US Senate Using Lexical Centrality · EMNLP-CoNLL 2007 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › text summarization
graph-based summarization |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | LexNet: A Graphical Environment for Graph-Based NLP · ACL 2006 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
text summarization |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | LexNet: A Graphical Environment for Graph-Based NLP · ACL 2006 |
Information retrieval › retrieval models
graph-based retrieval |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | LexNet: A Graphical Environment for Graph-Based NLP · ACL 2006 |
Information retrieval › retrieval models
random walk models |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | LexNet: A Graphical Environment for Graph-Based NLP · ACL 2006 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › knowledge acquisition
knowledge base construction |
0.0 | 1 | 2011 | Identifying Relations for Open Information Extraction · EMNLP 2011 |
Computational social science and digital humanities › political science
political text analysis |
0.0 | 1 | 2007 | MavenRank: Identifying Influential Members of the US Senate Using Lexical Centrality · EMNLP-CoNLL 2007 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
knowledge base integration · 0.4paraphrase generation · 0.2network analysis · 0.1lexical centrality · 0.1syntactic patterns · 0.1rule-based extraction · 0.1random walk · 0.1lexrank · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | Chinese Open Relation Extraction for Knowledge AcquisitionabstractYuen-Hsien Tseng, Lung-Hao Lee, Shu-Yen Lin, Bo-Shun Liao, Mei-Jun Liu, Hsin-Hsi Chen, Oren Etzioni, Anthony Fader. Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, volume 2: Short Papers. 2014. Yuen-Hsien Tseng, Lung-Hao Lee, Shu-Yen Lin, Bo-Shun Liao, Meijun Liu, Hsin-Hsi Chen, Oren Etzioni, Anthony Fader |
EACL | 8 |
| 2014 | Open question answering over curated and extracted knowledge basesabstractWe consider the problem of open-domain question answering (Open QA) over massive knowledge bases (KBs). Existing approaches use either manually curated KBs like Freebase or KBs automatically extracted from unstructured text. In this paper, we present OQA, the first approach to leverage both curated and extracted KBs. Anthony Fader, Luke Zettlemoyer, Oren Etzioni |
KDD | 1 |
| 2013 | Paraphrase-Driven Learning for Open Question Answering
Anthony Fader, Luke Zettlemoyer, Oren Etzioni |
ACL (1) | 1 |
| 2011 | Identifying Relations for Open Information Extraction
Anthony Fader, Stephen Soderland, Oren Etzioni |
EMNLP | 1 |
| 2011 | Open Information Extraction: The Second GenerationabstractHow do we scale information extraction to the massive size and unprecedented heterogeneity of the Web corpus? Beginning in 2003, our KnowItAll project has sought to extract high-quality knowledge from the Web. In 2007, we introduced the Open Information Extraction (Open IE) paradigm which eschews handlabeled training examples, and avoids domainspecific verbs and nouns, to develop unlexicalized, domain-independent extractors that scale to the Web corpus. Open IE systems have extracted billions of assertions as the basis for both commonsense knowledge and novel question-answering systems. This paper describes the second generation of Open IE systems, which rely on a novel model of how relations and their arguments are expressed in English sentences to double precision/recall compared with previous systems such as TEXTRUNNER and WOE. 1 Oren Etzioni, Anthony Fader, Janara Christensen, Stephen Soderland, Mausam |
IJCAI | 2 |
| 2008 | Tracking the Dynamic Evolution of Participants Salience in a Discussion
Ahmed Awadallah 0001, Anthony Fader, Michael H. Crespin, Kevin M. Quinn, Burt L. Monroe, Michael P. Colaresi, Dragomir R. Radev |
COLING | 2 |
| 2008 | Blind men and elephants: What do citation summaries tell us about a research article?abstractAbstract The old Asian legend about the blind men and the elephant comes to mind when looking at how different authors of scientific papers describe a piece of related prior work. It turns out that different citations to the same paper often focus on different aspects of that paper and that neither provides a full description of its full set of contributions. In this article, we will describe our investigation of this phenomenon. We studied citation summaries in the context of research papers in the biomedical domain. A citation summary is the set of citing sentences for a given article and can be used as a surrogate for the actual article in a variety of scenarios. It contains information that was deemed by peers to be important. Our study shows that citation summaries overlap to some extent with the abstracts of the papers and that they also differ from them in that they focus on different aspects of these papers than do the abstracts. In addition to this, co‐cited articles (which are pairs of articles cited by another article) tend to be similar. We show results based on a lexical similarity metric called cohesion to justify our claims. Aaron Elkiss, Siwei Shen, Anthony Fader, Günes Erkan, David J. States, Dragomir R. Radev |
J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. | 3 |
| 2007 | MavenRank: Identifying Influential Members of the US Senate Using Lexical Centrality
Anthony Fader, Dragomir R. Radev, Michael H. Crespin, Burt L. Monroe, Kevin M. Quinn, Michael P. Colaresi |
EMNLP-CoNLL | 1 |
| 2006 | LexNet: A Graphical Environment for Graph-Based NLPabstractThis interactive presentation describes LexNet, a graphical environment for graph-based NLP developed at the University of Michigan. LexNet includes LexRank (for text summarization), biased LexRank (for passage retrieval), and TUMBL (for binary classification). All tools in the collection are based on random walks on lexical graphs, that is graphs where different NLP objects (e.g., sentences or phrases) are represented as nodes linked by edges proportional to the lexical similarity between the two nodes. We will demonstrate these tools on a variety of NLP tasks including summarization, question answering, and prepositional phrase attachment. Dragomir R. Radev, Günes Erkan, Anthony Fader, Patrick Jordan, Siwei Shen, James P. Sweeney |
ACL | 3 |