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

Bevan K. Jones

dblp:23/9014 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 3 first-author

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.

Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Automata and formal languages · 100%
Artificial intelligence
3 papers
Information extraction and text analysis · 36% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 27% Language models and text generation · 27%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Automata and formal languages
graph grammars
0.212013
Parsing Graphs with Hyperedge Replacement Grammars · ACL (1) 2013
Automata and formal languages › graph grammars
graph parsing
0.212013
Parsing Graphs with Hyperedge Replacement Grammars · ACL (1) 2013
Automata and formal languages › graph grammars
hyperedge replacement grammar
0.212013
Parsing Graphs with Hyperedge Replacement Grammars · ACL (1) 2013
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
semantic parsing
0.112012
Semantic Parsing with Bayesian Tree Transducers · ACL (1) 2012
Automata and formal languages
grammatical inference
0.112011
Reducing Grounded Learning Tasks To Grammatical Inference · EMNLP 2011
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference
bayesian nonparametric model
0.112010
Synergies in learning words and their referents · NIPS 2010
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
language acquisition
0.112010
Synergies in learning words and their referents · NIPS 2010
Computer vision › Vision and language
grounded language learning
0.012011
Reducing Grounded Learning Tasks To Grammatical Inference · EMNLP 2011

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

grammatical inference · 0.2bayesian tree transducers · 0.1topic model · 0.1bayesian nonparametric modeling · 0.1PCFG · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2013 Parsing Graphs with Hyperedge Replacement Grammars
David Chiang 0001, Jacob Andreas, Daniel Bauer 0002, Karl Moritz Hermann, Bevan K. Jones, Kevin Knight
ACL (1)5
2012 Semantic Parsing with Bayesian Tree Transducers
Bevan K. Jones, Mark Johnson 0001, Sharon Goldwater
ACL (1)1
2012 Semantics-Based Machine Translation with Hyperedge Replacement Grammars
Bevan K. Jones, Jacob Andreas, Daniel Bauer 0002, Karl Moritz Hermann, Kevin Knight
COLING1
2011 Reducing Grounded Learning Tasks To Grammatical Inference
Benjamin Börschinger, Bevan K. Jones, Mark Johnson 0001
EMNLP2
2010 Learning Words and Their Meanings from Unsegmented Child-directed Speech
Bevan K. Jones, Mark Johnson 0001, Michael C. Frank
HLT-NAACL1
2010 Synergies in learning words and their referents
abstract
This paper presents Bayesian non-parametric models that simultaneously learn to segment words from phoneme strings and learn the referents of some of those words, and shows that there is a synergistic interaction in the acquisition of these two kinds of linguistic information. The models themselves are novel kinds of Adaptor Grammars that are an extension of an embedding of topic models into PCFGs. These models simultaneously segment phoneme sequences into words and learn the relationship between non-linguistic objects to the words that refer to them. We show (i) that modelling inter-word dependencies not only improves the accuracy of the word segmentation but also of word-object relationships, and (ii) that a model that simultaneously learns word-object relationships and word segmentation segments more accurately than one that just learns word segmentation on its own. We argue that these results support an interactive view of language acquisition that can take advantage of synergies such as these.
Mark Johnson 0001, Katherine Demuth, Michael C. Frank, Bevan K. Jones
NIPS4