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

Aditya Kalyanpur

dblp:64/1388 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
27ranked-venue papers
9as first author
3since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

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

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 15 · 6 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 13 · 4 first-author · 3 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-authorTheory of computation · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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
5 papers
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 33% Language models and text generation · 16% Reinforcement learning · 16%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers
Information retrieval · 84% Knowledge graphs · 16%

Topics — the 19 heaviest of 22, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
agent evaluation
1.012026
DREAM: Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics · ACL (1) 2026
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
evaluation of language models
1.012026
DREAM: Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics · ACL (1) 2026
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
explanation generation
0.612022
Braid: Weaving Symbolic and Neural Knowledge into Coherent Logical Explanations · AAAI 2022
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
logic-based explanation
0.612022
Braid: Weaving Symbolic and Neural Knowledge into Coherent Logical Explanations · AAAI 2022
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › probabilistic reasoning
probabilistic logic
0.612022
Braid: Weaving Symbolic and Neural Knowledge into Coherent Logical Explanations · AAAI 2022
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › commonsense reasoning
commonsense knowledge acquisition
0.512021
SKATE: A Natural Language Interface for Encoding Structured Knowledge · AAAI 2021
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems
natural language interface
0.512021
SKATE: A Natural Language Interface for Encoding Structured Knowledge · AAAI 2021
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
commonsense reasoning
0.412020
GLUCOSE: GeneraLized and COntextualized Story Explanations · EMNLP (1) 2020
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
narrative understanding
0.212022
Braid: Weaving Symbolic and Neural Knowledge into Coherent Logical Explanations · AAAI 2022
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
semantic parsing
0.112021
SKATE: A Natural Language Interface for Encoding Structured Knowledge · AAAI 2021
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
relation extraction
0.112011
Relation Extraction with Relation Topics · EMNLP 2011
Information retrieval
large-scale retrieval
0.112007
Scalable Semantic Retrieval through Summarization and Refinement · AAAI 2007
Information retrieval
retrieval models
0.112007
Scalable Semantic Retrieval through Summarization and Refinement · AAAI 2007
Information retrieval
search engines
0.112007
Scalable Semantic Retrieval through Summarization and Refinement · AAAI 2007
Information retrieval › search engines
semantic search
0.112007
Scalable Semantic Retrieval through Summarization and Refinement · AAAI 2007
Logic in computer science
knowledge representation and reasoning
0.112006
Modularity and Web Ontologies · KR 2006
Logic in computer science › knowledge representation and reasoning › knowledge representation
ontology
0.112006
Modularity and Web Ontologies · KR 2006
Automated reasoning and model checking › automated reasoning
description logic reasoning
0.112005
Debugging OWL ontologies · WWW 2005
Debugging and program repair
fault localization
0.012005
Debugging OWL ontologies · WWW 2005

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

deep research evaluation · 1.0agentic metrics · 1.0dynamic rule generation · 0.6distributed task-based framework · 0.6custom unification · 0.6semi-structured templates · 0.5neural semantic parser · 0.5neural rule-generation model · 0.5crowdsourcing · 0.4undo/redo · 0.2description logic reasoner · 0.2annotea collaboration · 0.2topic model · 0.1summarization · 0.1refinement · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 DREAM: Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics
abstract
Elad Ben Avraham, ChangHao Li, Ron Dorfman, Roy Ganz, Oren Nuriel, Amir Dudai, Aviad Aberdam, Noah Flynn, Elman Mansimov, Aditya Kalyanpur, Ron Litman. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2026.
Elad Ben-Avraham, Ron Dorfman, Roy Ganz, Oren Nuriel, Amir Dudai, Aviad Aberdam, Noah Flynn, Elman Mansimov, Aditya Kalyanpur, Ron Litman
ACL (1)10
2022 Braid: Weaving Symbolic and Neural Knowledge into Coherent Logical Explanations
abstract
Traditional symbolic reasoning engines, while attractive for their precision and explicability, have a few major drawbacks: the use of brittle inference procedures that rely on exact matching (unification) of logical terms, an inability to deal with uncertainty, and the need for a precompiled rule-base of knowledge (the “knowledge acquisition” problem). To address these issues, we devise a novel logical reasoner called Braid, that supports probabilistic rules, and uses the notion of custom unification functions and dynamic rule generation to overcome the brittle matching and knowledge-gap problem prevalent in traditional reasoners. In this paper, we describe the reasoning algorithms used in Braid, and their implementation in a distributed task-based framework that builds proof/explanation graphs for an input query. We use a simple QA example from a children’s story to motivate Braid’s design and explain how the various components work together to produce a coherent logical explanation. Finally, we evaluate Braid on the ROC Story Cloze test and achieve close to state-of-the-art results while providing frame-based explanations.
Aditya Kalyanpur, Tom Breloff, David A. Ferrucci
AAAI1
2021 SKATE: A Natural Language Interface for Encoding Structured Knowledge
abstract
In Natural Language (NL) applications, there is often a mismatch between what the NL interface is capable of interpreting and what a lay user knows how to express. This work describes a novel natural language interface that reduces this mismatch by refining natural language input through successive, automatically generated semi-structured templates. In this paper we describe how our approach, called SKATE, uses a neural semantic parser to parse NL input and suggest semi-structured templates, which are recursively filled to produce fully structured interpretations. We also show how SKATE integrates with a neural rule-generation model to interactively suggest and acquire commonsense knowledge. We provide a preliminary coverage analysis of SKATE for the task of story understanding, and then describe a current business use-case of the technology in a restricted domain: COVID-19 policy design.
Clifton James McFate, Aditya Kalyanpur, David A. Ferrucci, Andrea Bradshaw, Ariel Diertani, David Melville, Lori Moon
AAAI2
2020 GLUCOSE: GeneraLized and COntextualized Story Explanations
abstract
Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Aditya Kalyanpur, Lori Moon, David Buchanan, Lauren Berkowitz, Or Biran, Jennifer Chu-Carroll. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 2020.
Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Aditya Kalyanpur, Lori Moon, David W. Buchanan, Lauren Berkowitz, Or Biran, Jennifer Chu-Carroll
EMNLP (1)2
2014 Parallel and nested decomposition for factoid questions
abstract
Abstract Typically, automatic Question Answering (QA) approaches use the question in its entirety in the search for potential answers. We argue that decomposing complex factoid questions into separate facts about their answers is beneficial to QA, since an answer candidate with support coming from multiple independent facts is more likely to be the correct one. We broadly categorize decomposable questions as parallel or nested, and we present a novel question decomposition framework for enhancing the ability of single-shot QA systems to answer complex factoid questions. Essential to the framework are components for decomposition recognition, question rewriting, and candidate answer synthesis and re-ranking. We discuss the interplay among these, with particular emphasis on decomposition recognition, a process which, we argue, can be sufficiently informed by lexico-syntactic features alone. We validate our approach to decomposition by implementing the framework on top of IBM Watson™, a state-of-the-art QA system, and showing a statistically significant improvement over its accuracy.
Branimir Boguraev, Siddharth Patwardhan, Aditya Kalyanpur, Jennifer Chu-Carroll, Adam Lally
Nat. Lang. Eng.3
2012 Multi-Dimensional Feature Merger for Question Answering
Apoorv Agarwal, J. William Murdock, Jennifer Chu-Carroll, Adam Lally, Aditya Kalyanpur
COLING5
2012 Parallel and Nested Decomposition for Factoid Questions
Aditya Kalyanpur, Siddharth Patwardhan, Branimir Boguraev, Jennifer Chu-Carroll, Adam Lally
EACL1
2012 Natural Language Processing in Watson
Alfio Massimiliano Gliozzo, Aditya Kalyanpur, James Fan
HLT-NAACL2
2012 A Comparison of Hard Filters and Soft Evidence for Answer Typing in Watson
Christopher A. Welty, J. William Murdock, Aditya Kalyanpur, James Fan
ISWC (2)3
2012 Predicting Lexical Answer Types in Open Domain QA
abstract
Automatic open-domain Question Answering has been a long standing research challenge in the AI community. IBM Research undertook this challenge with the design of the DeepQA architecture and the implementation of Watson. This paper addresses a specific subtask of Deep QA, consisting of predicting the Lexical Answer Type (LAT) of a question. Our approach is completely unsupervised and is based on PRISMATIC, a large-scale lexical knowledge base automatically extracted from a Web corpus. Experiments on the Jeopardy! data shows that it is possible to correctly predict the LAT in a substantial number of questions. This approach can be used for general purpose knowledge acquisition tasks such as frame induction from text.
Alfio Massimiliano Gliozzo, Aditya Kalyanpur
Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst.2
2011 Fact-based question decomposition for candidate answer re-ranking
abstract
Factoid questions often contain one or more assertions (facts) about their answers. However, existing question-answering (QA) systems have not investigated how the multiple facts may be leveraged to enhance system performance. We argue that decomposing complex factoid questions can benefit QA, as an answer candidate is more likely to be correct if multiple independent facts support it. We categorize decomposable questions as parallel or nested, depending on processing strategy required. We present a novel decomposition framework---for parallel and nested questions---which can be overlaid on top of traditional QA systems. It contains decomposition rules for identifying fact sub-questions, a question-rewriting component and a candidate re-ranker. In a particularly challenging domain for our baseline QA system, our framework shows a statistically significant improvement in end-to-end QA performance.
Aditya Kalyanpur, Siddharth Patwardhan, Branimir Boguraev, Adam Lally, Jennifer Chu-Carroll
CIKM1
2011 Relation Extraction with Relation Topics
Chang Wang 0001, James Fan, Aditya Kalyanpur, David Gondek
EMNLP3
2011 Leveraging Community-Built Knowledge for Type Coercion in Question Answering
Aditya Kalyanpur, J. William Murdock, James Fan, Christopher A. Welty
ISWC (2)1
2009 Extracting Enterprise Vocabularies Using Linked Open Data
Julian Dolby, Achille Fokoue, Aditya Kalyanpur, Edith Schonberg, Kavitha Srinivas
ISWC3
2009 A Practical Approach for Scalable Conjunctive Query Answering on Acyclic EL+\mathcal{EL}^+ Knowledge Base
Jing Mei, Shengping Liu, Guo Tong Xie, Aditya Kalyanpur, Achille Fokoue, Yuan Ni
ISWC4
2009 Scalable highly expressive reasoner (SHER)
Julian Dolby, Achille Fokoue, Aditya Kalyanpur, Edith Schonberg, Kavitha Srinivas
J. Web Semant.3
2008 Scalable Grounded Conjunctive Query Evaluation over Large and Expressive Knowledge Bases
Julian Dolby, Achille Fokoue, Aditya Kalyanpur, Li Ma 0002, Edith Schonberg, Kavitha Srinivas, Xingzhi Sun 0001
ISWC3
2007 Scalable Semantic Retrieval through Summarization and Refinement
Julian Dolby, Achille Fokoue, Aditya Kalyanpur, Aaron Kershenbaum, Edith Schonberg, Kavitha Srinivas, Li Ma 0002
AAAI3
2007 Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner
Evren Sirin, Bijan Parsia, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Aditya Kalyanpur, Yarden Katz
J. Web Semant.4
2006 Repairing Unsatisfiable Concepts in OWL Ontologies
Aditya Kalyanpur, Bijan Parsia, Evren Sirin, Bernardo Cuenca Grau
ESWC1
2006 Modularity and Web Ontologies
Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Bijan Parsia, Evren Sirin, Aditya Kalyanpur
KR4
2006 Swoop: A Web Ontology Editing Browser
Aditya Kalyanpur, Bijan Parsia, Evren Sirin, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, James A. Hendler
J. Web Semant.1
2005 Debugging OWL ontologies
abstract
As an increasingly large number of OWL ontologies become available on the Semantic Web and the descriptions in the ontologies become more complicated, finding the cause of errors becomes an extremely hard task even for experts. Existing ontology development environments provide some limited support, in conjunction with a reasoner, for detecting and diagnosing errors in OWL ontologies. Typically these are restricted to the mere detection of, for example, unsatisfiable concepts. We have integrated a number of simple debugging cues generated from our description logic reasoner, Pellet, in our hypertextual ontology development environment, Swoop. These cues, in conjunction with extensive undo/redo and Annotea based collaboration support in Swoop, significantly improve the OWL debugging experience, and point the way to more general improvements in the presentation of an ontology to new users.
Bijan Parsia, Evren Sirin, Aditya Kalyanpur
WWW3
2005 A Tool for Working with Web Ontologies
abstract
The task of building an open and scalable ontology browsing and editing tool based on OWL, the first standardized Web-oriented ontology language, requires the rethinking of critical user interface and ontological engineering issues. In this article, we describe Swoop, a browser and editor specifically tailored to OWL ontologies. Taking a “Web view” of things has proven quite instructive, and we discuss some insights into Web ontologies that we gained through our experience with Swoop, including issues related to the display, navigation, editing, and collaborative annotation of OWL ontological data.
Aditya Kalyanpur, Bijan Parsia, James A. Hendler
Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst.1
2005 Debugging unsatisfiable classes in OWL ontologies
Aditya Kalyanpur, Bijan Parsia, Evren Sirin, James A. Hendler
J. Web Semant.1
2004 Automatic Mapping of OWL Ontologies into Java
Aditya Kalyanpur, Daniel Jiménez Pastor, Steve Battle, Julian A. Padget
SEKE1
2002 New Tools for the Semantic Web
Jennifer Golbeck, Michael Grove, Bijan Parsia, Aditya Kalyanpur, James A. Hendler
EKAW4