EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Matthew Honnibal
dblp:79/8177
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
5as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 5 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
4 papers |
Information extraction and text analysis · 94% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 4% Language models and text generation · 2% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Programming languages and type systems · 100% |
Topics — the 11 heaviest of 13, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › syntactic parsing
dependency parsing |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | An Improved Non-monotonic Transition System for Dependency Parsing · EMNLP 2015 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
syntactic parsing |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | An Improved Non-monotonic Transition System for Dependency Parsing · EMNLP 2015 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › syntactic parsing
transition-based parsing |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | An Improved Non-monotonic Transition System for Dependency Parsing · EMNLP 2015 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
entity linking |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Evaluating Entity Linking with Wikipedia · Artif. Intell. 2013 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
sequence labeling |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | A Sequence Labelling Approach to Quote Attribution · EMNLP-CoNLL 2012 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › data annotation › corpus annotation
syntactic annotation |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Rebanking CCGbank for Improved NP Interpretation · ACL 2010 |
Programming languages and type systems › grammar formalisms
combinatory categorial grammar |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Fully Lexicalising CCGbank with Hat Categories · EMNLP 2009 |
Programming languages and type systems
grammar formalisms |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Fully Lexicalising CCGbank with Hat Categories · EMNLP 2009 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
knowledge graph |
0.0 | 1 | 2013 | Evaluating Entity Linking with Wikipedia · Artif. Intell. 2013 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
natural language understanding |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Rebanking CCGbank for Improved NP Interpretation · ACL 2010 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › semantic analysis
noun phrase interpretation |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Rebanking CCGbank for Improved NP Interpretation · ACL 2010 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
greedy one-best parsing · 0.2corpus reannotation · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | An Improved Non-monotonic Transition System for Dependency ParsingabstractTransition-based dependency parsers usually use transition systems that monotonically extend partial parse states until they identify a complete parse tree.Honnibal et al. (2013) showed that greedy onebest parsing accuracy can be improved by adding additional non-monotonic transitions that permit the parser to "repair" earlier parsing mistakes by "over-writing" earlier parsing decisions.This increases the size of the set of complete parse trees that each partial parse state can derive, enabling such a parser to escape the "garden paths" that can trap monotonic greedy transition-based dependency parsers.We describe a new set of non-monotonic transitions that permits a partial parse state to derive a larger set of completed parse trees than previous work, which allows our parser to escape from a larger set of garden paths.A parser with our new nonmonotonic transition system has 91.85% directed attachment accuracy, an improvement of 0.6% over a comparable parser using the standard monotonic arc-eager transitions. Matthew Honnibal, Mark Johnson 0001 |
EMNLP | 1 |
| 2014 | Joint Incremental Disfluency Detection and Dependency ParsingabstractWe present an incremental dependency parsing model that jointly performs disfluency detection. The model handles speech repairs using a novel non-monotonic transition system, and includes several novel classes of features. For comparison, we evaluated two pipeline systems, using state-of-the-art disfluency detectors. The joint model performed better on both tasks, with a parse accuracy of 90.5% and 84.0% accuracy at disfluency detection. The model runs in expected linear time, and processes over 550 tokens a second. Matthew Honnibal |
Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics | 1 |
| 2013 | A Non-Monotonic Arc-Eager Transition System for Dependency Parsing
Matthew Honnibal, Yoav Goldberg |
CoNLL | 1 |
| 2013 | Evaluating Entity Linking with Wikipedia
Ben Hachey, Will Radford, Joel Nothman, Matthew Honnibal, James R. Curran |
Artif. Intell. | 4 |
| 2012 | A Sequence Labelling Approach to Quote Attribution
Timothy O'Keefe, Silvia Pareti, James R. Curran, Irena Koprinska, Matthew Honnibal |
EMNLP-CoNLL | 5 |
| 2010 | Rebanking CCGbank for Improved NP Interpretation
Matthew Honnibal, James R. Curran, Johan Bos |
ACL | 1 |
| 2009 | Fully Lexicalising CCGbank with Hat Categories
Matthew Honnibal, James R. Curran |
EMNLP | 1 |