Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Hengameh Irandoust
dblp:87/6387
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1
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
2 papers |
Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 52% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 33% Reinforcement learning · 14% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Games and playful interaction · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
plan recognition |
0.3 | 2 | 2013 | Controlling the Hypothesis Space in Probabilistic Plan Recognition · IJCAI 2013 Provoking Opponents to Facilitate the Recognition of their Intentions · AAAI 2011 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › plan recognition
probabilistic plan recognition |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Controlling the Hypothesis Space in Probabilistic Plan Recognition · IJCAI 2013 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › theory of mind
intention recognition |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Provoking Opponents to Facilitate the Recognition of their Intentions · AAAI 2011 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › multi-agent reinforcement learning
opponent modeling |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Provoking Opponents to Facilitate the Recognition of their Intentions · AAAI 2011 |
Games and playful interaction › game AI
video game agents |
0.0 | 1 | 2011 | Provoking Opponents to Facilitate the Recognition of their Intentions · AAAI 2011 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
plan recognition · 0.2probabilistic inference · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | Controlling the Hypothesis Space in Probabilistic Plan Recognition
Froduald Kabanza, Julien Filion, Abder Rezak Benaskeur, Hengameh Irandoust |
IJCAI | 4 |
| 2011 | Provoking Opponents to Facilitate the Recognition of their IntentionsabstractPossessing a sufficient level of situation awareness is essential for effective decision making in dynamic environments. In video games, this includes being aware to some extent of the intentions of the opponents. Such high-level awareness hinges upon inferences over the lower-level situation awareness provided by the game state. Traditional plan recognizers are completely passive processes that leave all the initiative to the observed agent. In a situation where the opponent's intentions are unclear, the observer is forced to wait until further observations of the opponent's actions are made to disambiguate the pending goal hypotheses. With the plan recognizer we propose, in contrast, the observer would take the initiative and provoke the opponent, with the expectation that his reaction will give cues as to what his true intentions actually are. Francis Bisson, Froduald Kabanza, Abder Rezak Benaskeur, Hengameh Irandoust |
AAAI | 4 |
| 2007 | Holonic control-based Sensor managementabstractThis paper discusses the application of holonic control paradigm to sensor management in military surveillance operations. Sensor management is described both as part of the data fusion process and as a control problem. The choice of holonic control as the most adequate architecture for sensor management in the military environment is explained and its application to surveillance operations illustrated. Holonic control is then simulated using a littoral surveillance scenario to test sensor management with and without feedback from high-level fusion (closed-loop versus open-loop). The results show that closed-loop sensor management significantly enhances global surveillance performance, reduces detection time of threatening objects, and reduces platforms' load, thus increasing stealth and decreasing detectability. Abder Rezak Benaskeur, Hengameh Irandoust, Peter F. McGuire, Robert W. Brennan |
FUSION | 2 |