Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Yusuf Izmirlioglu
dblp:203/4806
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
6as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0003-4740-5147ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 5 first-author · 4 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-authorTheory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author · 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 |
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 77% Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 23% | |
| Theoretical computer science
3 papers |
Logic in computer science · 93% Graph algorithms and graph theory · 7% |
Topics — the 8 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › qualitative reasoning
qualitative spatial reasoning |
1.2 | 2 | 2025 | Hybrid Reasoning About Relative Position and Orientation of Objects and Navigating Agents Using Answer Set Programming · AAAI 2025 Qualitative Reasoning About Cardinal Directions Using Answer Set Programming · AAAI 2018 |
Logic in computer science › logic programming
answer set programming |
1.2 | 2 | 2025 | Hybrid Reasoning About Relative Position and Orientation of Objects and Navigating Agents Using Answer Set Programming · AAAI 2025 Qualitative Reasoning About Cardinal Directions Using Answer Set Programming · AAAI 2018 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › spatial reasoning
cardinal direction calculus |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Qualitative Reasoning About Cardinal Directions Using Answer Set Programming · AAAI 2018 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › multi-agent planning
multi-agent meeting problem |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | A general formal framework for multi-agent meeting problems · ICRA 2017 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
multi-agent planning |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | A general formal framework for multi-agent meeting problems · ICRA 2017 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
consistency checking |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Hybrid Reasoning About Relative Position and Orientation of Objects and Navigating Agents Using Answer Set Programming · AAAI 2025 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › nonmonotonic reasoning
default reasoning |
0.1 | 1 | 2018 | Qualitative Reasoning About Cardinal Directions Using Answer Set Programming · AAAI 2018 |
Graph algorithms and graph theory
graph algorithms |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | A general formal framework for multi-agent meeting problems · ICRA 2017 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
answer set programming · 3.0OPRA calculus · 1.7logic-based AI · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Hybrid Reasoning About Relative Position and Orientation of Objects and Navigating Agents Using Answer Set ProgrammingabstractWe study reasoning about relative position, orientation and distance of moving objects in 2D space. We first construct a new hybrid calculus HOPA by augmenting qualitative distance and quantitative constraints into Oriented Point Relation Algebra (OPRA). Then we develop a framework for consistency checking and reasoning with HOPA using Answer Set Programming. This framework can also explain the source of inconsistency, infer new knowledge and generate a layout of objects and their orientation in the discrete space. The framework is capable of reasoning with (un)certain, heterogenous and presumed information. We evaluate efficiency and scalability of our method by computational experiments, and illustrate its applications with sample scenarios from robotic perception and marine navigation. Yusuf Izmirlioglu |
AAAI | 1 |
| 2023 | Qualitative Reasoning about 2D Cardinal Directions using Answer Set ProgrammingabstractWe introduce a formal framework (called NCDC-ASP) for representing and reasoning about cardinal directions between extended spatial objects on a plane, using Answer Set Programming (ASP). NCDC-ASP preserves the meaning of cardinal directional relations as in Cardinal Directional Calculus (CDC), and provides solutions to all consistency checking problems in CDC under various conditions (i.e., for a complete/incomplete set of basic/disjunctive CDC constraints over connected/disconnected spatial objects). In particular, NCDC-ASP models a discretized version of the consistency checking problem in ASP, over a finite grid (rather than a plane), where we provide new lower bounds on the grid size to guarantee that it correctly characterizes solutions for the consistency checking in CDC. In addition, NCDC-ASP has the following two novelties important for applications. NCDC-ASP introduces default CDC constraints to represent and reason about background or commonsense knowledge that involves default qualitative directional relations (e.g., "the ice cream truck is by default to the north of the playground" or "the keyboard is normally placed in front of the monitor"). NCDC-ASP introduces inferred CDC constraints to allow inference of missing CDC relations and to provide them as explanations. We illustrate the uses and usefulness of NCDC-ASP with interesting scenarios from the real-world. We design and develop a variety of benchmark instances, and comprehensively evaluate NCDC-ASP from the perspectives of computational efficiency. Yusuf Izmirlioglu, Esra Erdem 0001 |
J. Artif. Intell. Res. | 1 |
| 2022 | State Transition in Multi-agent Epistemic Domains Using Answer Set Programming
Yusuf Izmirlioglu, Loc Pham, Tran Cao Son, Enrico Pontelli |
LPNMR | 1 |
| 2022 | A New Semantics for Action Language mA*
Loc Pham, Yusuf Izmirlioglu, Tran Cao Son, Enrico Pontelli |
PRIMA | 2 |
| 2020 | Reasoning about Cardinal Directions between 3-Dimensional Extended Objects using Answer Set ProgrammingabstractAbstract We propose a novel formal framework (called 3D-NCDC-ASP) to represent and reason about cardinal directions between extended objects in 3-dimensional (3D) space, using Answer Set Programming (ASP). 3D-NCDC-ASP extends Cardinal Directional Calculus (CDC) with a new type of default constraints, andNCDC-ASP to 3D. 3D-NCDC-ASP provides a flexible platform offering different types of reasoning: Nonmonotonic reasoning with defaults, checking consistency of a set of constraints on 3D cardinal directions between objects, explaining inconsistencies, and inferring missing CDC relations. We prove the soundness of 3D-NCDC-ASP, and illustrate its usefulness with applications. Yusuf Izmirlioglu, Esra Erdem 0001 |
Theory Pract. Log. Program. | 1 |
| 2018 | Qualitative Reasoning About Cardinal Directions Using Answer Set ProgrammingabstractWe propose a novel method for representing and reasoning about an incomplete set of constraints about basic/disjunctive qualitative direction relations over simple/connected/disconnected regions, using Answer Set Programming, and prove its correctness with respect to cardinal direction calculus. We extend this method further with default qualitative direction constraints, and discuss its usefulness with some sample scenarios. Yusuf Izmirlioglu, Esra Erdem 0001 |
AAAI | 1 |
| 2017 | A general formal framework for multi-agent meeting problemsabstractThe multi-agent meeting (MAM) problem asks for a meeting location for multiple heterogeneous agents such that the agents can get together within a given time or budget, possibly using different modes of transportation, subject to some constraints and preferences to visit specific locations on their ways to the meeting location. We mathematically model MAM as a graph problem, prove its intractability, and introduce a novel formal method to solve it and its variations using logic-based AI methods. We experimentally evaluate our approach with artificial benchmarks randomly generated over a grid, and show its real world applicability with instances generated over maps of Istanbul and Hong Kong. Yusuf Izmirlioglu, Bahadir A. Pehlivan, Misra Turp, Esra Erdem 0001 |
ICRA | 1 |