VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ulysse Hennebelle
dblp:347/8139
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 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
1 paper |
Algorithms and data structures · 46% Mathematical optimization · 46% Computational complexity · 7% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithms and data structures
analysis of algorithms |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Runtime Analyses of Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms in the Presence of Noise · IJCAI 2023 |
Mathematical optimization › multi-objective optimization › evolutionary algorithm
evolutionary multi-objective optimization |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Runtime Analyses of Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms in the Presence of Noise · IJCAI 2023 |
Mathematical optimization
multi-objective optimization |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Runtime Analyses of Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms in the Presence of Noise · IJCAI 2023 |
Algorithms and data structures › runtime analysis
runtime analysis of evolutionary algorithms |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Runtime Analyses of Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms in the Presence of Noise · IJCAI 2023 |
Computational complexity
randomized computation |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Runtime Analyses of Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms in the Presence of Noise · IJCAI 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
mathematical runtime analysis · 0.7drift analysis · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Adaptivity Gaps in Two-Sided Assortment Optimization
Omar El Housni, Alfredo Torrico, Ulysse Hennebelle |
IPCO | 3 |
| 2023 | Runtime Analyses of Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms in the Presence of NoiseabstractIn single-objective optimization, it is well known that evolutionary algorithms also without further adjustments can stand a certain amount of noise in the evaluation of the objective function. In contrast, this question is not at all understood for multi-objective optimization. In this work, we conduct the first mathematical runtime analysis of a simple multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) on a classic benchmark in the presence of noise in the objective function. We prove that when bit-wise prior noise with rate p <= alpha/n, alpha a suitable constant, is present, the simple evolutionary multi-objective optimizer (SEMO) without any adjustments to cope with noise finds the Pareto front of the OneMinMax benchmark in time O(n^2 log n), just as in the case without noise. Given that the problem here is to arrive at a population consisting of n+1 individuals witnessing the Pareto front, this is a surprisingly strong robustness to noise (comparably simple evolutionary algorithms cannot optimize the single-objective OneMax problem in polynomial time when p = omega(log(n)/n)). Our proofs suggest that the strong robustness of the MOEA stems from its implicit diversity mechanism designed to enable it to compute a population covering the whole Pareto front. Interestingly this result only holds when the objective value of a solution is determined only once and the algorithm from that point on works with this, possibly noisy, objective value. We prove that when all solutions are reevaluated in each iteration, then any noise rate p = omega(log(n)/n^2) leads to a super-polynomial runtime. This is very different from single-objective optimization, where it is generally preferred to reevaluate solutions whenever their fitness is important and where examples are known such that not reevaluating solutions can lead to catastrophic performance losses. Matthieu Dinot, Benjamin Doerr, Ulysse Hennebelle, Sebastian Will |
IJCAI | 3 |