Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Suvrat Bhooshan
dblp:214/4094
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › natural language understanding › sentence pair modeling
natural language inference |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Are Natural Language Inference Models IMPPRESsive? Learning IMPlicature and PRESupposition · ACL 2020 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › pragmatics
pragmatic reasoning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
INTERSPEECH | 4 |
| 2020 | Are Natural Language Inference Models IMPPRESsive? Learning IMPlicature and PRESuppositionabstractNatural 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 |
ACL | 3 |