VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Debashmita Poddar
dblp:263/7112
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
3since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0002-8460-5773ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021Theory 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.
| Theoretical computer science
3 papers |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 63% Mathematical optimization · 22% Approximation and online algorithms · 15% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
influence maximization |
1.2 | 2 | 2023 | Better bounds on the adaptivity gap of influence maximization under full-adoption feedback · Artif. Intell. 2023 Better Bounds on the Adaptivity Gap of Influence Maximization under Full-adoption Feedback · AAAI 2021 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › influence maximization
adaptive influence maximization |
1.0 | 2 | 2021 | Improved Approximation Factor for Adaptive Influence Maximization via Simple Greedy Strategies · ICALP 2021 Better Bounds on the Adaptivity Gap of Influence Maximization under Full-adoption Feedback · AAAI 2021 |
Approximation and online algorithms › approximation algorithms
approximation guarantees |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Better bounds on the adaptivity gap of influence maximization under full-adoption feedback · Artif. Intell. 2023 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
social networks |
0.7 | 2 | 2021 | Improved Approximation Factor for Adaptive Influence Maximization via Simple Greedy Strategies · ICALP 2021 Better Bounds on the Adaptivity Gap of Influence Maximization under Full-adoption Feedback · AAAI 2021 |
Mathematical optimization › stochastic optimization › stochastic combinatorial optimization
adaptivity gap |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Better Bounds on the Adaptivity Gap of Influence Maximization under Full-adoption Feedback · AAAI 2021 |
Mathematical optimization › combinatorial optimization
greedy algorithm |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Improved Approximation Factor for Adaptive Influence Maximization via Simple Greedy Strategies · ICALP 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
independent cascade model · 0.5adaptive policy · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Better bounds on the adaptivity gap of influence maximization under full-adoption feedback
Gianlorenzo D'Angelo, Debashmita Poddar, Cosimo Vinci |
Artif. Intell. | 2 |
| 2021 | Better Bounds on the Adaptivity Gap of Influence Maximization under Full-adoption FeedbackabstractIn the influence maximization (IM) problem, we are given a social network and a budget k, and we look for a set of k nodes in the network, called seeds, that maximize the expected number of nodes that are reached by an influence cascade generated by the seeds, according to some stochastic model for influence diffusion. Extensive studies have been done on the IM problem, since his definition by Kempe, Kleinberg, and Tardos (2003). However, most of the work focuses on the non-adaptive version of the problem where all the k seed nodes must be selected before that the cascade starts. In this paper we study the adaptive IM, where the nodes are selected sequentially one by one, and the decision on the i-th seed can be based on the observed cascade produced by the first i-1 seeds. We focus on the full-adoption feedback in which we can observe the entire cascade of each previously selected seed and on the independent cascade model where each edge is associated with an independent probability of diffusing influence. Previous works showed that there are constant upper bounds on the adaptivity gap, which compares the performance of an adaptive algorithm against a non-adaptive one, but the analyses used to prove these bounds only works for specific graph classes such as in-arborescences, out-arborescences, and one-directional bipartite graphs. Our main result is the first sub-linear upper bound that holds for any graph. Specifically, we show that the adaptivity gap is upper-bounded by ∛n+1, where n is the number of nodes in the graph. Moreover we improve over the known upper bound for in-arborescences from 2e/(e-1)≈3.16 to 2e²/(e²-1)≈2.31. Finally, we study α-bounded graphs, a class of undirected graphs in which the sum of node degrees higher than two is at most α, and show that the adaptivity gap is upper-bounded by √α+O(1). Moreover, we show that in 0-bounded graphs, i.e. undirected graphs in which each connected component is a path or a cycle, the adaptivity gap is at most 3e³/(e³-1)≈3.16. To prove our bounds, we introduce new techniques to relate adaptive policies with non-adaptive ones that might be of their own interest. Gianlorenzo D'Angelo, Debashmita Poddar, Cosimo Vinci |
AAAI | 2 |
| 2021 | Improved Approximation Factor for Adaptive Influence Maximization via Simple Greedy StrategiesabstractIn the adaptive influence maximization problem, we are given a social network and a budget k, and we iteratively select k nodes, called seeds, in order to maximize the expected number of nodes that are reached by an influence cascade that they generate according to a stochastic model for influence diffusion. The decision on the next seed to select is based on the observed cascade of previously selected seeds. We focus on the myopic feedback model, in which we can only observe which neighbors of previously selected seeds have been influenced and on the independent cascade model, where each edge is associated with an independent probability of diffusing influence. While adaptive policies are strictly stronger than non-adaptive ones, in which all the seeds are selected beforehand, the latter are much easier to design and implement and they provide good approximation factors if the adaptivity gap, the ratio between the adaptive and the non-adaptive optima, is small. Previous works showed that the adaptivity gap is at most 4, and that simple adaptive or non-adaptive greedy algorithms guarantee an approximation of 1/4 (1-1/e) ≈ 0.158 for the adaptive optimum. This is the best approximation factor known so far for the adaptive influence maximization problem with myopic feedback.
In this paper, we directly analyze the approximation factor of the non-adaptive greedy algorithm, without passing through the adaptivity gap, and show an improved bound of 1/2 (1-1/e) ≈ 0.316. Therefore, the adaptivity gap is at most 2e/e-1 ≈ 3.164. To prove these bounds, we introduce a new approach to relate the greedy non-adaptive algorithm to the adaptive optimum. The new approach does not rely on multi-linear extensions or random walks on optimal decision trees, which are commonly used techniques in the field. We believe that it is of independent interest and may be used to analyze other adaptive optimization problems. Finally, we also analyze the adaptive greedy algorithm, and show that guarantees an improved approximation factor of 1-1/(√{e)}≈ 0.393. Gianlorenzo D'Angelo, Debashmita Poddar, Cosimo Vinci |
ICALP | 2 |