EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Anish Mahendran
dblp:239/4253
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3
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
2 papers |
Question answering and dialogue systems · 46% Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 27% Trustworthy machine learning · 27% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning under uncertainty
information gathering |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Iterative Feature Mining for Constraint-Based Data Collection to Increase Data Diversity and Model Robustness · EMNLP (1) 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Iterative Feature Mining for Constraint-Based Data Collection to Increase Data Diversity and Model Robustness · EMNLP (1) 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems
intent detection |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | An Evaluation Dataset for Intent Classification and Out-of-Scope Prediction · EMNLP/IJCNLP (1) 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
iterative feature mining · 0.4constraint-based data collection · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Inconsistencies in Crowdsourced Slot-Filling Annotations: A Typology and Identification MethodsabstractSlot-filling models in task-driven dialog systems rely on carefully annotated training data.However, annotations by crowd workers are often inconsistent or contain errors.Simple solutions like manually checking annotations or having multiple workers label each sample are expensive and waste effort on samples that are correct.If we can identify inconsistencies, we can focus effort where it is needed.Toward this end, we define six inconsistency types in slot-filling annotations.Using three new noisy crowd-annotated datasets, we show that a wide range of inconsistencies occur and can impact system performance if not addressed.We then introduce automatic methods of identifying inconsistencies.Experiments on our new datasets show that these methods effectively reveal inconsistencies in data, though there is further scope for improvement. Stefan Larson, Adrian Cheung, Anish Mahendran, Kevin Leach, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld |
COLING | 3 |
| 2020 | Iterative Feature Mining for Constraint-Based Data Collection to Increase Data Diversity and Model RobustnessabstractStefan Larson, Anthony Zheng, Anish Mahendran, Rishi Tekriwal, Adrian Cheung, Eric Guldan, Kevin Leach, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 2020. Stefan Larson, Anthony Zheng, Anish Mahendran, Rishi Tekriwal, Adrian Cheung, Eric Guldan, Kevin Leach, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld |
EMNLP (1) | 3 |
| 2019 | An Evaluation Dataset for Intent Classification and Out-of-Scope PredictionabstractStefan Larson, Anish Mahendran, Joseph J. Peper, Christopher Clarke, Andrew Lee, Parker Hill, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Kevin Leach, Michael A. Laurenzano, Lingjia Tang, Jason Mars. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). 2019. Stefan Larson, Anish Mahendran, Joseph Peper, Christopher Clarke, Andrew Lee 0001, Parker Hill, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Kevin Leach, Michael Laurenzano, Lingjia Tang, Jason Mars |
EMNLP/IJCNLP (1) | 2 |