Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Eugene Nudelman
dblp:18/6610
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2009
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 1 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 1 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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.
| Theoretical computer science
4 papers |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 72% Algorithms and data structures · 28% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Performance modeling and evaluation · 100% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 100% |
Topics — the 8 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Performance modeling and evaluation › performance prediction
execution time prediction |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Empirical hardness models: Methodology and a case study on combinatorial auctions · J. ACM 2009 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › game representation
compact representation |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Fast and Compact: A Simple Class of Congestion Games · AAAI 2005 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
congestion games |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Fast and Compact: A Simple Class of Congestion Games · AAAI 2005 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › equilibrium computation
nash equilibrium computation |
0.0 | 1 | 2004 | Simple Search Methods for Finding a Nash Equilibrium · AAAI 2004 |
Algorithms and data structures › algorithm engineering
algorithm selection |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | A Portfolio Approach to Algorithm Selection · IJCAI 2003 |
Algorithms and data structures › algorithm engineering › algorithm selection
portfolio-based algorithm selection |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | A Portfolio Approach to Algorithm Selection · IJCAI 2003 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › auction theory
combinatorial auction |
0.0 | 1 | 2009 | Empirical hardness models: Methodology and a case study on combinatorial auctions · J. ACM 2009 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › auction theory › combinatorial auction
winner determination |
0.0 | 1 | 2009 | Empirical hardness models: Methodology and a case study on combinatorial auctions · J. ACM 2009 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
supervised machine learning · 0.2benchmark tuning · 0.2algorithm portfolios · 0.2search methods · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | Empirical hardness models: Methodology and a case study on combinatorial auctionsabstractIs it possible to predict how long an algorithm will take to solve a previously-unseen instance of an NP-complete problem? If so, what uses can be found for models that make such predictions? This article provides answers to these questions and evaluates the answers experimentally. We propose the use of supervised machine learning to build models that predict an algorithm's runtime given a problem instance. We discuss the construction of these models and describe techniques for interpreting them to gain understanding of the characteristics that cause instances to be hard or easy. We also present two applications of our models: building algorithm portfolios that outperform their constituent algorithms, and generating test distributions that emphasize hard problems. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our techniques in a case study of the combinatorial auction winner determination problem. Our experimental results show that we can build very accurate models of an algorithm's running time, interpret our models, build an algorithm portfolio that strongly outperforms the best single algorithm, and tune a standard benchmark suite to generate much harder problem instances. Kevin Leyton-Brown, Eugene Nudelman, Yoav Shoham |
J. ACM | 2 |
| 2005 | Fast and Compact: A Simple Class of Congestion Games
Samuel Ieong, Robert McGrew 0001, Eugene Nudelman, Yoav Shoham, Qixiang Sun |
AAAI | 3 |
| 2004 | Simple Search Methods for Finding a Nash Equilibrium
Ryan Porter, Eugene Nudelman, Yoav Shoham |
AAAI | 2 |
| 2004 | Understanding Random SAT: Beyond the Clauses-to-Variables Ratio
Eugene Nudelman, Kevin Leyton-Brown, Holger H. Hoos, Alex Devkar, Yoav Shoham |
CP | 1 |
| 2003 | Boosting as a Metaphor for Algorithm Design
Kevin Leyton-Brown, Eugene Nudelman, Galen Andrew, Jim McFadden, Yoav Shoham |
CP | 2 |
| 2003 | A Portfolio Approach to Algorithm Selection
Kevin Leyton-Brown, Eugene Nudelman, Galen Andrew, Jim McFadden, Yoav Shoham |
IJCAI | 2 |
| 2002 | Learning the Empirical Hardness of Optimization Problems: The Case of Combinatorial Auctions
Kevin Leyton-Brown, Eugene Nudelman, Yoav Shoham |
CP | 2 |