EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Heidi E. Dixon
dblp:09/6536
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 4 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 1 first-author
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
1 paper |
Motion planning and robot control · 50% Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 50% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Smart cities and intelligent transportation · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Automated reasoning and model checking · 39% Computational complexity · 30% Logic in computer science · 30% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
path planning |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Green Driver: AI in a Microcosm · AAAI 2011 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning under uncertainty
stochastic shortest path |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Green Driver: AI in a Microcosm · AAAI 2011 |
Smart cities and intelligent transportation › route planning
eco-routing |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Green Driver: AI in a Microcosm · AAAI 2011 |
Logic in computer science
proof theory |
0.0 | 1 | 2004 | Implementing a Generalized Version of Resolution · AAAI 2004 |
Computational complexity › proof complexity
resolution |
0.0 | 1 | 2004 | Implementing a Generalized Version of Resolution · AAAI 2004 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
theorem proving |
0.0 | 1 | 2004 | Implementing a Generalized Version of Resolution · AAAI 2004 |
Smart cities and intelligent transportation
driver behavior analysis |
0.0 | 1 | 2011 | Green Driver: AI in a Microcosm · AAAI 2011 |
Smart cities and intelligent transportation › mobility data analysis
traffic analytics |
0.0 | 1 | 2011 | Green Driver: AI in a Microcosm · AAAI 2011 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
automated theorem proving |
0.0 | 1 | 2004 | Implementing a Generalized Version of Resolution · AAAI 2004 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
hidden markov model · 0.2dynamic programming · 0.2a* search · 0.2resolution · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Green Driver: AI in a MicrocosmabstractThe Green Driver app is a dynamic routing application for GPS-enabled smartphones. Green Driver combines client GPS data with real-time traffic light information provided by cities to determine optimal routes in response to driver route requests. Routes are optimized with respect to travel time, with the intention of saving the driver both time and fuel, and rerouting can occur if warranted. During a routing session, client phones communicate with a centralized server that both collects GPS data and processes route requests. All relevant data are anonymized and saved to databases for analysis; statistics are calculated from the aggregate data and fed back to the routing engine to improve future routing. Analyses can also be performed to discern driver trends: where do drivers tend to go, how long do they stay, when and where does traffic congestion occur, and so on. The system uses a number of techniques from the field of artificial intelligence. We apply a variant of A* search for solving the stochastic shortest path problem in order to find optimal driving routes through a network of roads given light-status information. We also use dynamic programming and hidden Markov models to determine the progress of a driver through a network of roads from GPS data and light-status data. The Green Driver system is currently deployed for testing in Eugene, Oregon, and is scheduled for large-scale deployment in Portland, Oregon, in Spring 2011. Jim Apple, Aran Clauson, Heidi E. Dixon, Hiba Fakhoury, Matthew L. Ginsberg, Erin Keenan, Alex Leighton, Kevin Scavezze, Bryan Smith |
AAAI | 4 |
| 2005 | Generalizing Boolean Satisfiability III: ImplementationabstractThis is the third of three papers describing ZAP, a satisfiability engine that substantially generalizes existing tools while retaining the performance characteristics of modern high-performance solvers. The fundamental idea underlying ZAP is that many problems passed to such engines contain rich internal structure that is obscured by the Boolean representation used; our goal has been to define a representation in which this structure is apparent and can be exploited to improve computational performance. The first paper surveyed existing work that (knowingly or not) exploited problem structure to improve the performance of satisfiability engines, and the second paper showed that this structure could be understood in terms of groups of permutations acting on individual clauses in any particular Boolean theory. We conclude the series by discussing the techniques needed to implement our ideas, and by reporting on their performance on a variety of problem instances. Heidi E. Dixon, Matthew L. Ginsberg, David K. Hofer, Eugene M. Luks, Andrew J. Parkes |
J. Artif. Intell. Res. | 1 |
| 2004 | Implementing a Generalized Version of Resolution
Heidi E. Dixon, Matthew L. Ginsberg, David K. Hofer, Eugene M. Luks, Andrew J. Parkes |
AAAI | 1 |
| 2004 | Generalizing Boolean Satisfiability II: TheoryabstractThis is the second of three planned papers describing ZAP, a satisfiability engine that substantially generalizes existing tools while retaining the performance characteristics of modern high performance solvers. The fundamental idea underlying ZAP is that many problems passed to such engines contain rich internal structure that is obscured by the Boolean representation used; our goal is to define a representation in which this structure is apparent and can easily be exploited to improve computational performance. This paper presents the theoretical basis for the ideas underlying ZAP, arguing that existing ideas in this area exploit a single, recurring structure in that multiple database axioms can be obtained by operating on a single axiom using a subgroup of the group of permutations on the literals in the problem. We argue that the group structure precisely captures the general structure at which earlier approaches hinted, and give numerous examples of its use. We go on to extend the Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland inference procedure to this broader setting, and show that earlier computational improvements are either subsumed or left intact by the new method. The third paper in this series discusses ZAP's implementation and presents experimental performance results. Heidi E. Dixon, Matthew L. Ginsberg, Eugene M. Luks, Andrew J. Parkes |
J. Artif. Intell. Res. | 1 |
| 2004 | Generalizing Boolean Satisfiability I: Background and Survey of Existing WorkabstractThis is the first of three planned papers describing ZAP, a satisfiability engine that substantially generalizes existing tools while retaining the performance characteristics of modern high-performance solvers. The fundamental idea underlying ZAP is that many problems passed to such engines contain rich internal structure that is obscured by the Boolean representation used; our goal is to define a representation in which this structure is apparent and can easily be exploited to improve computational performance. This paper is a survey of the work underlying ZAP, and discusses previous attempts to improve the performance of the Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland algorithm by exploiting the structure of the problem being solved. We examine existing ideas including extensions of the Boolean language to allow cardinality constraints, pseudo-Boolean representations, symmetry, and a limited form of quantification. While this paper is intended as a survey, our research results are contained in the two subsequent articles, with the theoretical structure of ZAP described in the second paper in this series, and ZAP's implementation described in the third. Heidi E. Dixon, Matthew L. Ginsberg, Andrew J. Parkes |
J. Artif. Intell. Res. | 1 |