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

Omid Keivani

dblp:202/1329 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
4as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 3 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 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
Algorithms and data structures · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithms and data structures › similarity search
nearest neighbor search
0.312018
Improved nearest neighbor search using auxiliary information and priority functions · ICML 2018
Algorithms and data structures › similarity search › nearest neighbor search
random projection tree
0.312018
Improved nearest neighbor search using auxiliary information and priority functions · ICML 2018

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

random projection · 0.3auxiliary information at internal nodes · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Random projection-based auxiliary information can improve tree-based nearest neighbor search
Omid Keivani, Kaushik Sinha
Inf. Sci.1
2018 Improved nearest neighbor search using auxiliary information and priority functions
abstract
Nearest neighbor search using random projection trees has recently been shown to achieve superior performance, in terms of better accuracy while retrieving less number of data points, compared to locality sensitive hashing based methods. However, to achieve acceptable nearest neighbor search accuracy for large scale applications, where number of data points and/or number of features can be very large, it requires users to maintain, store and search through large number of such independent random projection trees, which may be undesirable for many practical applications. To address this issue, in this paper we present different search strategies to improve nearest neighbor search performance of a single random projection tree. Our approach exploits properties of single and multiple random projections, which allows us to store meaningful auxiliary information at internal nodes of a random projection tree as well as to design priority functions to guide the search process that results in improved nearest neighbor search performance. Empirical results on multiple real world datasets show that our proposed method improves the search accuracy of a single tree compared to baseline methods.
Omid Keivani, Kaushik Sinha
ICML1
2018 Improved maximum inner product search with better theoretical guarantee using randomized partition trees
Omid Keivani, Kaushik Sinha, Parikshit Ram
Mach. Learn.1
2017 Sparse Randomized Partition Trees for Nearest Neighbor Search
abstract
Randomized partition trees have recently been shown to be very effective in solving nearest neighbor search problem. In spite of enjoying strong theoretical guarantee, it suffers from high space complexity, since each internal node of the tree needs to store a $d$ dimensional projection direction leading to a $O(nd)$ space complexity for a dataset of size $n$. Inspired by the fast Johnson-Lindenstrauss transform, in this paper, we propose a sparse version of randomized partition tree where each internal node needs to store only a few non-zero entries, as opposed to all $d$ entries, leading to significant space savings without sacrificing much in terms of nearest neighbor search accuracy. As a by product of this, query time of our proposed method is slightly better than that of its non-sparse counterpart for large dataset size. Our theoretical results indicate that our proposed method enjoys the same theoretical guarantee as that of the original non-sparse RP-tree. Experimental evaluations on four real world dataset strongly suggest that nearest neighbor search performance of our proposed sparse RP-tree is very similar to that of its non-sparse counterpart in terms of accuracy and number of retrieved points.
Kaushik Sinha, Omid Keivani
AISTATS2
2017 Improved maximum inner product search with better theoretical guarantees
abstract
Recent interest in the problem of maximum inner product search (MIPS) has sparked the development of new solutions. The solutions (usually) reduce MIPS to the well-studied problem of nearest-neighbour search (NNS). To escape the curse of dimensionality, the problem is relaxed to accept approximate solutions (that is, accept anything that is approximately maximum), and locality sensitive hashing is the approximate NNS algorithm of choice. While being extremely resourceful, these existing solutions have a couple of aspects that can be improved upon - (i) MIPS can be reduced to NNS in multiple ways and there is lack of understanding (mostly theoretical but also empirical) when to choose which reduction for best accuracy or efficiency, and (ii) when MIPS is solved via approximate NNS, translating this approximation to the MIPS solution is not straightforward. To overcome these usability issues, we propose the use of randomized partition trees (RPTs) for solving MIPS. We still reduce MIPS to NNS but utilize RPTs to solve the NNS problem. RPTs find the exact NNS solution, hence the exact MIPS solution (with high probability), avoiding the need for any translation of approximation. The theoretical properties of RPTs allow us to definitively choose the best MIPS-to-NNS reduction. The empirical properties of RPTs allow us to significantly outperform the state-of-the-art while providing unique fine-grained control over the accuracy-efficiency tradeoff. For example, at 80% accuracy, RPTs are 2-5× more efficient than the state-of-the-art.
Omid Keivani, Kaushik Sinha, Parikshit Ram
IJCNN1