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

Suvrat Bhooshan

dblp:214/4094 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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 · 61% Language models and text generation · 39%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › natural language understanding › sentence pair modeling
natural language inference
0.412020
Are Natural Language Inference Models IMPPRESsive? Learning IMPlicature and PRESupposition · ACL 2020
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › pragmatics
pragmatic reasoning
0.412020
Are Natural Language Inference Models IMPPRESsive? Learning IMPlicature and PRESupposition · ACL 2020

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

infersent · 0.4diagnostic dataset construction · 0.4bag-of-words · 0.4BERT · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 The State Of TTS: A Case Study with Human Fooling Rates
Praveen Srinivasa Varadhan, Sherry Thomas, Sai Teja M. S., Suvrat Bhooshan, Mitesh M. Khapra
INTERSPEECH4
2020 Are Natural Language Inference Models IMPPRESsive? Learning IMPlicature and PRESupposition
abstract
Natural language inference (NLI) is an increasingly important task for natural language understanding, which requires one to infer whether a sentence entails another.However, the ability of NLI models to make pragmatic inferences remains understudied.We create an IMPlicature and PRESupposition diagnostic dataset (IMPPRES), consisting of >25k semiautomatically generated sentence pairs illustrating well-studied pragmatic inference types.We use IMPPRES to evaluate whether BERT, InferSent, and BOW NLI models trained on MultiNLI (Williams et al., 2018) learn to make pragmatic inferences.Although MultiNLI appears to contain very few pairs illustrating these inference types, we find that BERT learns to draw pragmatic inferences.It reliably treats scalar implicatures triggered by "some" as entailments.For some presupposition triggers like only, BERT reliably recognizes the presupposition as an entailment, even when the trigger is embedded under an entailment canceling operator like negation.BOW and InferSent show weaker evidence of pragmatic reasoning.We conclude that NLI training encourages models to learn some, but not all, pragmatic inferences.Type Example Trigger Jo's cat yawned.Presupposition Jo has a cat.Negated Trigger Jo's cat didn't yawn.Modal Trigger It's possible that Jo's cat yawned.Interrog.Trigger Did Jo's cat yawn?Cond.Trigger If Jo's cat yawned, it's OK.Negated Prsp.Jo doesn't have a cat.Neutral Prsp.Amy has a cat.
Paloma Jeretic, Alex Warstadt, Suvrat Bhooshan, Adina Williams
ACL3