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

Eugene Nudelman

dblp:18/6610 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Performance modeling and evaluation › performance prediction
execution time prediction
0.112009
Empirical hardness models: Methodology and a case study on combinatorial auctions · J. ACM 2009
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › game representation
compact representation
0.112005
Fast and Compact: A Simple Class of Congestion Games · AAAI 2005
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
congestion games
0.112005
Fast and Compact: A Simple Class of Congestion Games · AAAI 2005
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › equilibrium computation
nash equilibrium computation
0.012004
Simple Search Methods for Finding a Nash Equilibrium · AAAI 2004
Algorithms and data structures › algorithm engineering
algorithm selection
0.012003
A Portfolio Approach to Algorithm Selection · IJCAI 2003
Algorithms and data structures › algorithm engineering › algorithm selection
portfolio-based algorithm selection
0.012003
A Portfolio Approach to Algorithm Selection · IJCAI 2003
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › auction theory
combinatorial auction
0.012009
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
0.012009
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2009 Empirical hardness models: Methodology and a case study on combinatorial auctions
abstract
Is 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. ACM2
2005 Fast and Compact: A Simple Class of Congestion Games
Samuel Ieong, Robert McGrew 0001, Eugene Nudelman, Yoav Shoham, Qixiang Sun
AAAI3
2004 Simple Search Methods for Finding a Nash Equilibrium
Ryan Porter, Eugene Nudelman, Yoav Shoham
AAAI2
2004 Understanding Random SAT: Beyond the Clauses-to-Variables Ratio
Eugene Nudelman, Kevin Leyton-Brown, Holger H. Hoos, Alex Devkar, Yoav Shoham
CP1
2003 Boosting as a Metaphor for Algorithm Design
Kevin Leyton-Brown, Eugene Nudelman, Galen Andrew, Jim McFadden, Yoav Shoham
CP2
2003 A Portfolio Approach to Algorithm Selection
Kevin Leyton-Brown, Eugene Nudelman, Galen Andrew, Jim McFadden, Yoav Shoham
IJCAI2
2002 Learning the Empirical Hardness of Optimization Problems: The Case of Combinatorial Auctions
Kevin Leyton-Brown, Eugene Nudelman, Yoav Shoham
CP2