REVIEW 1 cited by
Automatic Table completion using Knowledge Base
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Table is a popular data format to organize and present relational information. Users often have to manually compose tables when gathering their desiderate information (e.g., entities and their attributes) for decision making. In this work, we propose to resolve a new type of heterogeneous query viz: tabular query, which contains a natural language query description, column names of the desired table, and an example row. We aim to acquire more entity tuples (rows) and automatically fill the table specified by the tabular query. We design a novel framework AutoTableComplete which aims to integrate schema specific structural information with the natural language contextual information provided by the user, to complete tables automatically, using a heterogeneous knowledge base (KB) as the main information source. Given a tabular query as input, our framework first constructs a set of candidate chains that connect the given example entities in KB. We learn to select the best matching chain from these candidates using the semantic context from tabular query. The selected chain is then converted into a SPARQL query, executed against KB to gather a set of candidate rows, that are then ranked in order of their relevance to the tabular query, to complete the desired table. We construct a new dataset based on tables in Wikipedia pages and Freebase, using which we perform a wide range of experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of AutoTableComplete as well as present a detailed error analysis of our method.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
IMAGINE-E: Image Generation Intelligence Evaluation of State-of-the-art Text-to-Image Models
A new evaluation suite finds that CLIPScore, HPSv2, and Aesthetic Score misjudge challenging text-to-image outputs, while GPT-4o and human ratings favor FLUX.1 and Ideogram2.0.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.