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.

Matthew Honnibal

dblp:79/8177 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › syntactic parsing
dependency parsing
0.212015
An Improved Non-monotonic Transition System for Dependency Parsing · EMNLP 2015
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
syntactic parsing
0.212015
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
0.212015
An Improved Non-monotonic Transition System for Dependency Parsing · EMNLP 2015
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
entity linking
0.212013
Evaluating Entity Linking with Wikipedia · Artif. Intell. 2013
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
sequence labeling
0.112012
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
0.112010
Rebanking CCGbank for Improved NP Interpretation · ACL 2010
Programming languages and type systems › grammar formalisms
combinatory categorial grammar
0.112009
Fully Lexicalising CCGbank with Hat Categories · EMNLP 2009
Programming languages and type systems
grammar formalisms
0.112009
Fully Lexicalising CCGbank with Hat Categories · EMNLP 2009
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
knowledge graph
0.012013
Evaluating Entity Linking with Wikipedia · Artif. Intell. 2013
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
natural language understanding
0.012010
Rebanking CCGbank for Improved NP Interpretation · ACL 2010
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › semantic analysis
noun phrase interpretation
0.012010
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 An Improved Non-monotonic Transition System for Dependency Parsing
abstract
Transition-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
EMNLP1
2014 Joint Incremental Disfluency Detection and Dependency Parsing
abstract
We 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. Linguistics1
2013 A Non-Monotonic Arc-Eager Transition System for Dependency Parsing
Matthew Honnibal, Yoav Goldberg
CoNLL1
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-CoNLL5
2010 Rebanking CCGbank for Improved NP Interpretation
Matthew Honnibal, James R. Curran, Johan Bos
ACL1
2009 Fully Lexicalising CCGbank with Hat Categories
Matthew Honnibal, James R. Curran
EMNLP1