VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Rakesh Shivanna
dblp:155/1938
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—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 · 1 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 since 2021
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 |
Deep learning architectures and training · 43% Graph learning · 24% Learning theory · 19% | |
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Mathematical optimization · 28% Algorithms and data structures · 24% Graph algorithms and graph theory · 24% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Recommender systems · 77% Information retrieval · 23% |
Topics — the 14 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommender systems › click-through rate prediction
feature interaction |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | DCN V2: Improved Deep & Cross Network and Practical Lessons for Web-scale Learning to Rank Systems · WWW 2021 |
Graph algorithms and graph theory › network analysis
graph ranking |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | How Many Pairwise Preferences Do We Need to Rank a Graph Consistently? · AAAI 2019 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › social choice
preference aggregation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | How Many Pairwise Preferences Do We Need to Rank a Graph Consistently? · AAAI 2019 |
Algorithms and data structures
ranking |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | How Many Pairwise Preferences Do We Need to Rank a Graph Consistently? · AAAI 2019 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › semi-supervised learning › graph-based semi-supervised learning
graph transduction |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Spectral Norm Regularization of Orthonormal Representations for Graph Transduction · NIPS 2015 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
network embedding |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Spectral Norm Regularization of Orthonormal Representations for Graph Transduction · NIPS 2015 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › regularization
spectral regularization |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Spectral Norm Regularization of Orthonormal Representations for Graph Transduction · NIPS 2015 |
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization
convex optimization |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Spectral Norm Regularization of Orthonormal Representations for Graph Transduction · NIPS 2015 |
Mathematical optimization › convex relaxation
semidefinite relaxation |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Spectral Norm Regularization of Orthonormal Representations for Graph Transduction · NIPS 2015 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph representation learning |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Learning on graphs using Orthonormal Representation is Statistically Consistent · NIPS 2014 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › statistical estimation
statistical consistency |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Learning on graphs using Orthonormal Representation is Statistically Consistent · NIPS 2014 |
Information retrieval › ranking
learning to rank |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | DCN V2: Improved Deep & Cross Network and Practical Lessons for Web-scale Learning to Rank Systems · WWW 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization bounds |
0.1 | 1 | 2015 | Spectral Norm Regularization of Orthonormal Representations for Graph Transduction · NIPS 2015 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
PAC learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2015 | Spectral Norm Regularization of Orthonormal Representations for Graph Transduction · NIPS 2015 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
feedforward neural network · 0.5feed-forward neural network · 0.5deep cross networks · 0.5deep cross network · 0.5subgradient method · 0.4inexact proximal method · 0.4FISTA · 0.4sample complexity · 0.4pairwise preferences · 0.4orthonormal representation · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | DCN V2: Improved Deep & Cross Network and Practical Lessons for Web-scale Learning to Rank SystemsabstractLearning effective feature crosses is the key behind building recommender systems. However, the sparse and large feature space requires exhaustive search to identify effective crosses. Deep & Cross Network (DCN) was proposed to automatically and efficiently learn bounded-degree predictive feature interactions. Unfortunately, in models that serve web-scale traffic with billions of training examples, DCN showed limited expressiveness in its cross network at learning more predictive feature interactions. Despite significant research progress made, many deep learning models in production still rely on traditional feed-forward neural networks to learn feature crosses inefficiently. Rakesh Shivanna, Zhiyuan Cheng 0002, Sagar Jain, Dong Lin, Lichan Hong, Ed H. Chi |
WWW | 2 |
| 2019 | How Many Pairwise Preferences Do We Need to Rank a Graph Consistently?
Aadirupa Saha, Rakesh Shivanna, Chiranjib Bhattacharyya |
AAAI | 2 |
| 2015 | Spectral Norm Regularization of Orthonormal Representations for Graph TransductionabstractRecent literature~\cite{ando} suggests that embedding a graph on an unit sphere leads to better generalization for graph transduction. However, the choice of optimal embedding and an efficient algorithm to compute the same remains open. In this paper, we show that orthonormal representations, a class of unit-sphere graph embeddings are PAC learnable. Existing PAC-based analysis do not apply as the VC dimension of the function class is infinite. We propose an alternative PAC-based bound, which do not depend on the VC dimension of the underlying function class, but is related to the famous Lov\'{a}sz~$\vartheta$ function. The main contribution of the paper is SPORE, a SPectral regularized ORthonormal Embedding for graph transduction, derived from the PAC bound. SPORE is posed as a non-smooth convex function over an \emph{elliptope}. These problems are usually solved as semi-definite programs (SDPs) with time complexity $O(n^6)$. We present, Infeasible Inexact proximal~(IIP): an Inexact proximal method which performs subgradient procedure on an approximate projection, not necessarily feasible. IIP is more scalable than SDP, has an $O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}})$ convergence, and is generally applicable whenever a suitable approximate projection is available. We use IIP to compute SPORE where the approximate projection step is computed by FISTA, an accelerated gradient descent procedure. We show that the method has a convergence rate of $O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}})$. The proposed algorithm easily scales to 1000's of vertices, while the standard SDP computation does not scale beyond few hundred vertices. Furthermore, the analysis presented here easily extends to the multiple graph setting. Rakesh Shivanna, Bibaswan K. Chatterjee, Raman Sankaran, Chiranjib Bhattacharyya, Francis R. Bach |
NIPS | 1 |
| 2014 | Learning on graphs using Orthonormal Representation is Statistically Consistent
Rakesh Shivanna, Chiranjib Bhattacharyya |
NIPS | 1 |