Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Matthew Faw
dblp:195/2526
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
5as first author
5since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 5 first-author · 4 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 1Theory of computation · 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
5 papers |
Optimization for machine learning · 47% Deep learning architectures and training · 19% Language models and text generation · 19% | |
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 73% Approximation and online algorithms · 27% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Energy-efficient computing · 44% Performance modeling and evaluation · 44% Processor architecture and microarchitecture · 13% |
Topics — the 19 heaviest of 21, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › stochastic gradient descent
adaptive stochastic gradient descent |
1.2 | 2 | 2023 | Beyond Uniform Smoothness: A Stopped Analysis of Adaptive SGD · COLT 2023 The Power of Adaptivity in SGD: Self-Tuning Step Sizes with Unbounded Gradients and Affine Variance · COLT 2022 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
non-convex optimization |
1.2 | 2 | 2023 | Beyond Uniform Smoothness: A Stopped Analysis of Adaptive SGD · COLT 2023 The Power of Adaptivity in SGD: Self-Tuning Step Sizes with Unbounded Gradients and Affine Variance · COLT 2022 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
bandit |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | On Mitigating Affinity Bias through Bandits with Evolving Biased Feedback · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
foundation model |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | In-Context Fine-Tuning for Time-Series Foundation Models · ICML 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
in-context learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | In-Context Fine-Tuning for Time-Series Foundation Models · ICML 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › in-context learning
in-context tuning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | In-Context Fine-Tuning for Time-Series Foundation Models · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › foundation model
time series foundation model |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | In-Context Fine-Tuning for Time-Series Foundation Models · ICML 2025 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › online decision making
fair sequential decision making |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | On Mitigating Affinity Bias through Bandits with Evolving Biased Feedback · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
convergence analysis |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Beyond Uniform Smoothness: A Stopped Analysis of Adaptive SGD · COLT 2023 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › non-convex optimization
unbounded smoothness |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Beyond Uniform Smoothness: A Stopped Analysis of Adaptive SGD · COLT 2023 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › matching
bipartite matching |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Single-Sample Prophet Inequalities via Greedy-Ordered Selection · SODA 2022 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › auction theory
combinatorial auction |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Single-Sample Prophet Inequalities via Greedy-Ordered Selection · SODA 2022 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
matching |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Single-Sample Prophet Inequalities via Greedy-Ordered Selection · SODA 2022 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
mechanism design |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Single-Sample Prophet Inequalities via Greedy-Ordered Selection · SODA 2022 |
Approximation and online algorithms
online algorithms |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Single-Sample Prophet Inequalities via Greedy-Ordered Selection · SODA 2022 |
Approximation and online algorithms › online algorithms
prophet inequality |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Single-Sample Prophet Inequalities via Greedy-Ordered Selection · SODA 2022 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation › domain shift
covariate shift |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Mix and Match: An Optimistic Tree-Search Approach for Learning Models from Mixture Distributions · NeurIPS 2020 |
Energy-efficient computing › power management › peak power management
computational sprinting |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Computational Sprinting: Architecture, Dynamics, and Strategies · ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 2017 |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
chip multiprocessor |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Computational Sprinting: Architecture, Dynamics, and Strategies · ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 2017 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
regret lower bound · 1.7elimination-style algorithm · 1.7UCB · 1.7pre-training · 0.9in-context learning · 0.9stopping time analysis · 0.7self-tuning step sizes · 0.6secretary problem reduction · 0.6greedy algorithm · 0.6affine variance noise · 0.6stochastic gradient descent · 0.4model reuse · 0.4thermal limit modeling · 0.3power limit modeling · 0.3multi-agent game theory · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | On Mitigating Affinity Bias through Bandits with Evolving Biased FeedbackabstractUnconscious bias has been shown to influence how we assess our peers, with consequences for hiring, promotions and admissions. In this work, we focus on affinity bias, the component of unconscious bias which leads us to prefer people who are similar to us, despite no deliberate intention of favoritism. In a world where the people hired today become part of the hiring committee of tomorrow, we are particularly interested in understanding (and mitigating) how affinity bias affects this feedback loop. This problem has two distinctive features: 1) we only observe the _biased value_ of a candidate, but we want to optimize with respect to their _real value_ 2) the bias towards a candidate with a specific set of traits depends on the _fraction_ of people in the hiring committee with the same set of traits. We introduce a new bandits variant that exhibits those two features, which we call affinity bandits. Unsurprisingly, classical algorithms such as UCB often fail to identify the best arm in this setting. We prove a new instance-dependent regret lower bound, which is larger than that in the standard bandit setting by a multiplicative function of $K$. Since we treat rewards that are _time-varying_ and _dependent on the policy's past actions_, deriving this lower bound requires developing proof techniques beyond the standard bandit techniques. Finally, we design an elimination-style algorithm which nearly matches this regret, despite never observing the real rewards. Matthew Faw, Constantine Caramanis, Jessica Hoffmann |
ICML | 1 |
| 2025 | In-Context Fine-Tuning for Time-Series Foundation ModelsabstractMotivated by the recent success of time-series foundation models for zero-shot forecasting, we present a methodology for in-context fine-tuning of a time-series foundation model. In particular, we design a pretrained foundation model that can be prompted (at inference time) with multiple time-series examples, in order to forecast a target time-series into the future. Our foundation model is specifically trained to utilize examples from multiple related time-series in its context window (in addition to the history of the target time-series) to help it adapt to the specific distribution of the target domain at inference time. We show that such a foundation model that uses in-context examples at inference time can obtain much better performance on popular forecasting benchmarks compared to supervised deep learning methods, statistical models, and other time series foundation models. Interestingly, our in-context fine-tuning approach even matches the performance of a foundation model that is explicitly fine-tuned on the target domain. Matthew Faw, Rajat Sen, Abhimanyu Das |
ICML | 1 |
| 2023 | Beyond Uniform Smoothness: A Stopped Analysis of Adaptive SGDabstractThis work considers the problem of finding a first-order stationary point of a non-convex function with potentially unbounded smoothness constant using a stochastic gradient oracle. We focus on the class of $(L_0,L_1)$-smooth functions proposed by Zhang et al. (ICLR’20). Empirical evidence suggests that these functions more closely capture practical machine learning problems as compared to the pervasive $L_0$-smoothness. This class is rich enough to include highly non-smooth functions, such as $\exp(L_1 x)$ which is $(0,\mathcal{O}(L_1))$-smooth. Despite the richness, an emerging line of works achieves the $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}})$ rate of convergence when the noise of the stochastic gradients is deterministically and uniformly bounded. This noise restriction is not required in the $\L_0$-smooth setting, and in many practical settings is either not satisfied, or results in weaker convergence rates with respect to the noise scaling of the convergence rate.We develop a technique that allows us to prove $\mathcal{O}(\frac{\mathrm{poly}\log(T)}{\sqrt{T}})$ convergence rates for $(L_0,L_1)$-smooth functions without assuming uniform bounds on the noise support. The key innovation behind our results is a carefully constructed stopping time $\tau$ which is simultaneously “large” on average, yet also allows us to treat the adaptive step sizes before $\tau$ as (roughly) independent of the gradients. For general $(L_0,L_1)$-smooth functions, our analysis requires the mild restriction that the multiplicative noise parameter $\sigma_1 < 1$. For a broad subclass of $(L_0,L_1)$-smooth functions, our convergence rate continues to hold when $\sigma_1 \geq 1$. By contrast, we prove that many algorithms analyzed by prior works on $(L_0,L_1)$-smooth optimization diverge with constant probability even for smooth and strongly-convex functions when $\sigma_1 > 1$. Matthew Faw, Litu Rout, Constantine Caramanis, Sanjay Shakkottai |
COLT | 1 |
| 2022 | The Power of Adaptivity in SGD: Self-Tuning Step Sizes with Unbounded Gradients and Affine VarianceabstractWe study convergence rates of AdaGrad-Norm as an exemplar of adaptive stochastic gradient methods (SGD), where the step sizes change based on observed stochastic gradients, for minimizing non-convex, smooth objectives. Despite their popularity, the analysis of adaptive SGD lags behind that of non adaptive methods in this setting. Specifically, all prior works rely on some subset of the following assumptions: (i) uniformly-bounded gradient norms, (ii) uniformly-bounded stochastic gradient variance (or even noise support), (iii) conditional independence between the step size and stochastic gradient. In this work, we show that AdaGrad-Norm exhibits an order optimal convergence rate of $\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\mathrm{poly}\log(T)}{\sqrt{T}}\right)$ after $T$ iterations under the same assumptions as optimally-tuned non adaptive SGD (unbounded gradient norms and affine noise variance scaling), and crucially, without needing any tuning parameters. We thus establish that adaptive gradient methods exhibit order-optimal convergence in much broader regimes than previously understood. Matthew Faw, Isidoros Tziotis, Constantine Caramanis, Aryan Mokhtari, Sanjay Shakkottai, Rachel A. Ward |
COLT | 1 |
| 2022 | Single-Sample Prophet Inequalities via Greedy-Ordered SelectionabstractWe study single-sample prophet inequalities (SSPIs), i.e., prophet inequalities where only a single sample from each prior distribution is available. Besides a direct, and optimal, SSPI for the basic single choice problem [Rubinstein et al., 2020], most existing SSPI results were obtained via an elegant, but inherently lossy reduction to order-oblivious secretary (OOS) policies [Azar et al., 2014]. Motivated by this discrepancy, we develop an intuitive and versatile greedy-based technique that yields SSPIs directly rather than through the reduction to OOSs. Our results can be seen as generalizing and unifying a number of existing results in the area of prophet and secretary problems. Our algorithms significantly improve on the competitive guarantees for a number of interesting scenarios (including general matching with edge arrivals, bipartite matching with vertex arrivals, and certain matroids), and capture new settings (such as budget additive combinatorial auctions). Complementing our algorithmic results, we also consider mechanism design variants. Finally, we analyze the power and limitations of different SSPI approaches by providing a partial converse to the reduction from SSPI to OOS given by Azar et al. Constantine Caramanis, Paul Dütting, Matthew Faw, Federico Fusco 0001, Philip Lazos, Stefano Leonardi 0001, Orestis Papadigenopoulos, Emmanouil Pountourakis, Rebecca Reiffenhäuser |
SODA | 3 |
| 2020 | Mix and Match: An Optimistic Tree-Search Approach for Learning Models from Mixture DistributionsabstractWe consider a covariate shift problem where one has access to several different training datasets for the same learning problem and a small validation set which possibly differs from all the individual training distributions. The distribution shift is due, in part, to \emph{unobserved} features in the datasets. The objective, then, is to find the best mixture distribution over the training datasets (with only observed features) such that training a learning algorithm using this mixture has the best validation performance. Our proposed algorithm, \textsf{Mix&Match}, combines stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with optimistic tree search and model re-use (evolving partially trained models with samples from different mixture distributions) over the space of mixtures, for this task. We prove a novel high probability bound on the final SGD iterate without relying on a global gradient norm bound, and use it to show the advantages of model re-use. Additionally, we provide simple regret guarantees for our algorithm with respect to recovering the optimal mixture, given a total budget of SGD evaluations. Finally, we validate our algorithm on two real-world datasets. Matthew Faw, Rajat Sen, Karthikeyan Shanmugam 0001, Constantine Caramanis, Sanjay Shakkottai |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2017 | Computational Sprinting: Architecture, Dynamics, and StrategiesabstractComputational sprinting is a class of mechanisms that boost performance but dissipate additional power. We describe a sprinting architecture in which many, independent chip multiprocessors share a power supply and sprints are constrained by the chips’ thermal limits and the rack’s power limits. Moreover, we present the computational sprinting game, a multi-agent perspective on managing sprints. Strategic agents decide whether to sprint based on application phases and system conditions. The game produces an equilibrium that improves task throughput for data analytics workloads by 4--6× over prior greedy heuristics and performs within 90% of an upper bound on throughput from a globally optimized policy. Seyed Majid Zahedi, Songchun Fan, Matthew Faw, Elijah Cole, Benjamin C. Lee |
ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. | 3 |