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

Fintan J. Costello

dblp:30/8837 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
12ranked-venue papers
5as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
0000-0002-3953-7863ORCID · verified

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 12 · 5 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 6 · 4 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.

Artificial intelligence
3 papers
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 46% Information extraction and text analysis · 37% Vision and language · 16%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
lexical semantics
0.112006
Using WordNet to Automatically Deduce Relations between Words in Noun-Noun Compounds · ACL 2006
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › lexical semantics › multiword expression
noun compound interpretation
0.112006
Using WordNet to Automatically Deduce Relations between Words in Noun-Noun Compounds · ACL 2006
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › spatial reasoning
spatial language understanding
0.112006
Proximity in Context: An Empirically Grounded Computational Model of Proximity for Processing Topological Spatial Expressions · ACL 2006
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › semantic representation
discourse representation
0.112005
Dynamically structuring, updating and interrelating representations of visual and linguistic discourse context · Artif. Intell. 2005
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › ontology
lexical knowledge base
0.012006
Using WordNet to Automatically Deduce Relations between Words in Noun-Noun Compounds · ACL 2006
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › ontology › lexical ontology
wordnet
0.012006
Using WordNet to Automatically Deduce Relations between Words in Noun-Noun Compounds · ACL 2006

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

psycholinguistic experiment · 0.1computational modeling · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 A computational model of feature formation, event prediction, and attention switching
Eman Awad, Fintan J. Costello
CogSci2
2017 Mathematical invariants in people's probabilistic reasoning
Fintan J. Costello, Paul Watts
CogSci1
2017 Probability judgement from samples: accurate estimates and the conjunction fallacy
Rita Howe, Fintan J. Costello
CogSci2
2016 A test of two models of probability judgment: quantum versus noisy probability
Fintan J. Costello, Paul Watts
CogSci1
2016 A model of conditional probability judgment
Fintan J. Costello, Paul Watts
CogSci1
2014 On fallacies and normative reasoning: when people's judgements follow probability theory
Fintan J. Costello, Travis Mathison
CogSci1
2013 A Model of Word Similarity Based on Structural Alignment of Subject-Verb-Object Triples
Dervla O'Keeffe, Fintan J. Costello
CICLing (1)2
2013 General and specific paraphrases of semantic relations between nouns
abstract
Abstract Many English noun pairs suggest an almost limitless array of semantic interpretation. A fruit bowl might be described as a bowl for fruit, a bowl that contains fruit, a bowl for holding fruit, or even (perhaps in a modern sculpture class), a bowl made out of fruit. These interpretations vary in syntax, semantic denotation, plausibility, and level of semantic detail. For example, a headache pill is usually a pill for preventing headaches, but might, perhaps in the context of a list of side effects, be a pill that can cause headaches (Levi, J. N. 1978. The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic Press.). In addition to lexical ambiguity, both relational ambiguity and relational vagueness make automatic semantic interpretation of these combinations difficult. While humans parse these possibilities with ease, computational systems are only recently gaining the ability to deal with the complexity of lexical expressions of semantic relations. In this paper, we describe techniques for paraphrasing the semantic relations that can hold between nouns in a noun compound, using a semi-supervised probabilistic method to rank candidate paraphrases of semantic relations, and describing a new method for selecting plausible relational paraphrases at arbitrary levels of semantic specification. These methods are motivated by the observation that existing semantic relation classification schemes often exhibit a highly skewed class distribution, and that lexical paraphrases of semantic relations vary widely in semantic precision.
Paul Nulty, Fintan J. Costello
Nat. Lang. Eng.2
2009 Applying Computational Models of Spatial Prepositions to Visually Situated Dialog
abstract
This article describes the application of computational models of spatial prepositions to visually situated dialog systems. In these dialogs, spatial prepositions are important because people often use them to refer to entities in the visual context of a dialog. We first describe a generic architecture for a visually situated dialog system and highlight the interactions between the spatial cognition module, which provides the interface to the models of prepositional semantics, and the other components in the architecture. Following this, we present two new computational models of topological and projective spatial prepositions. The main novelty within these models is the fact that they account for the contextual effect which other distractor objects in a visual scene can have on the region described by a given preposition. We next present psycholinguistic tests evaluating our approach to distractor interference on prepositional semantics, and illustrate how these models are used for both interpretation and generation of prepositional expressions.
John D. Kelleher, Fintan J. Costello
Comput. Linguistics2
2006 Using WordNet to Automatically Deduce Relations between Words in Noun-Noun Compounds
Fintan J. Costello, Tony Veale, Simon Dunne
ACL1
2006 Proximity in Context: An Empirically Grounded Computational Model of Proximity for Processing Topological Spatial Expressions
abstract
The paper presents a new model for context dependent interpretation of linguistic expressions about spatial proximity between objects in a natural scene. The paper discusses novel psycholinguistic experimental data that tests and verifies the model. The model has been implemented, and enables a conversational robot to identify objects in a scene through topological spatial relations (e.g. "X near Y"). The model can help motivate the choice between topological and projective prepositions.
John D. Kelleher, Geert-Jan M. Kruijff, Fintan J. Costello
ACL3
2005 Dynamically structuring, updating and interrelating representations of visual and linguistic discourse context
John D. Kelleher, Fintan J. Costello, Josef van Genabith
Artif. Intell.2