Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Frank Reichartz
dblp:51/565
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 2 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 3 · 2 first-authorTheory of computation · 1
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
1 paper |
Information extraction and text analysis · 50% Kernel, tree and ensemble methods · 50% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Compilers and program optimization · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
relation extraction |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Semantic relation extraction with kernels over typed dependency trees · KDD 2010 |
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods › kernel function
tree kernel |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Semantic relation extraction with kernels over typed dependency trees · KDD 2010 |
Compilers and program optimization
parsing |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Semantic relation extraction with kernels over typed dependency trees · KDD 2010 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
dependency parsing · 0.2tree kernels · 0.1tree kernel · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | Semantic relation extraction with kernels over typed dependency treesabstractAn important step for understanding the semantic content of text is the extraction of semantic relations between entities in natural language documents. Automatic extraction techniques have to be able to identify different versions of the same relation which usually may be expressed in a great variety of ways. Therefore these techniques benefit from taking into account many syntactic and semantic features, especially parse trees generated by automatic sentence parsers. Typed dependency parse trees are edge and node labeled parse trees whose labels and topology contains valuable semantic clues. This information can be exploited for relation extraction by the use of kernels over structured data for classification. In this paper we present new tree kernels for relation extraction over typed dependency parse trees. On a public benchmark data set we are able to demonstrate a significant improvement in terms of relation extraction quality of our new kernels over other state-of-the-art kernels. Frank Reichartz, Hannes Korte, Gerhard Paass |
KDD | 1 |
| 2009 | A Logic-Based Approach to Relation Extraction from Texts
Tamás Horváth 0001, Gerhard Paass, Frank Reichartz, Stefan Wrobel |
ILP | 3 |
| 2009 | Dependency Tree Kernels for Relation Extraction from Natural Language Text
Frank Reichartz, Hannes Korte, Gerhard Paass |
ECML/PKDD (2) | 1 |
| 2009 | Exploiting Semantic Constraints for Estimating Supersenses with CRFsabstractThe annotation of words and phrases by ontology concepts is extremely helpful for semantic interpretation. However many ontologies, e.g. WordNet, are too fine-grained and even human annotators often have disagreements about the precise word sense. Therefore we use coarse-grained supersenses of WordNet. We employ conditional random fields (CRFs) to predict these supersenses taking into account the interaction of neigboring words. As the annotation of training data is costly we modify the CRF algorithm to process lumped labels, i.e. a set of possible labels for each training example, one of which is the correct label. This information can be derived automatically from WordNet. By this and the use of new features we are able to increase the f-value for about 8% compared to previous results. If we use training data without annotations it turns out that the resulting F-value is only slightly lower than for a fully labeled training data. Therefore unlabeled data may be employed in an unsupervised way to increase the quality of predicted supersenses. Gerhard Paass, Frank Reichartz |
SDM | 2 |