Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Hafedh El Ferchichi

dblp:384/4129 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 67% Algorithms and data structures · 33%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Reinforcement learning · 50% Learning theory · 50%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithms and data structures › learning algorithms
active ranking
0.812024
Active Ranking and Matchmaking, with Perfect Matchings · ICML 2024
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
matching
0.812024
Active Ranking and Matchmaking, with Perfect Matchings · ICML 2024
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › matching
perfect matching
0.812024
Active Ranking and Matchmaking, with Perfect Matchings · ICML 2024
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning
bandit theory
0.212024
Active Ranking and Matchmaking, with Perfect Matchings · ICML 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
multi-armed bandit
0.212024
Active Ranking and Matchmaking, with Perfect Matchings · ICML 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

bandit algorithms · 1.5AKS sorting networks · 0.8AKS sorting network · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Active Ranking and Matchmaking, with Perfect Matchings
abstract
We address the challenge of actively ranking a set of items/players with varying values/strengths. The comparison outcomes are random, with a greater noise the closer the values. A crucial requirement is that, at each iteration of the algorithm, all items must be compared once, i.e., an iteration is a perfect matching. Furthermore, we presume that comparing two players with closely matched strengths incurs no cost and, in contrast, a unit cost is associated with comparing players whose strength difference is more substantial. Our secondary objective is to determine an optimal matching between players based on this cost function: we propose and analyze an algorithm that draws on concepts from both AKS sorting networks and bandit theory. Our algorithm achieves both objectives with high probability, and the total cost is optimal (up to logarithmic terms).
Hafedh El Ferchichi, Matthieu Lerasle, Vianney Perchet
ICML1