Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Anna L. D. Latour
dblp:204/8189 · also Anna Louise D. Latour
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
4as first author
2since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0002-5802-8271ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 4 first-author · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 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
2 papers |
Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Algorithms and data structures · 44% Automated reasoning and model checking · 44% Mathematical optimization · 12% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Data mining · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
constraint programming |
1.0 | 2 | 2022 | Exact stochastic constraint optimisation with applications in network analysis · Artif. Intell. 2022 Stochastic Constraint Propagation for Mining Probabilistic Networks · IJCAI 2019 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › constraint optimization
stochastic constraint optimization |
1.0 | 2 | 2022 | Exact stochastic constraint optimisation with applications in network analysis · Artif. Intell. 2022 Stochastic Constraint Propagation for Mining Probabilistic Networks · IJCAI 2019 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
model counting |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Solving the Identifying Code Set Problem with Grouped Independent Support · IJCAI 2023 |
Data mining
pattern mining |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Stochastic Constraint Propagation for Mining Probabilistic Networks · IJCAI 2019 |
Mathematical optimization › discrete optimization
mixed integer linear programming |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Exact stochastic constraint optimisation with applications in network analysis · Artif. Intell. 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
ordered binary decision diagrams · 1.5programming by optimisation · 1.1knowledge compilation · 1.1algorithm configuration · 1.1mixed integer programming · 0.8constraint propagation · 0.8integer linear programming · 0.7grouped independent support · 0.7ordered binary decision diagram · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Solving the Identifying Code Set Problem with Grouped Independent SupportabstractAn important problem in network science is finding an optimal placement of sensors in nodes in order to uniquely detect failures in the network. This problem can be modelled as an identifying code set (ICS) problem, introduced by Karpovsky et al. in 1998. The ICS problem aims to find a cover of a set S, such that the elements in the cover define a unique signature for each of the elements of S, and to minimise the cover’s cardinality. In this work, we study a generalised identifying code set (GICS) problem, where a unique signature must be found for each subset of S that has a cardinality of at most k (instead of just each element of S). The concept of an independent support of a Boolean formula was introduced by Chakraborty et al. in 2014 to speed up propositional model counting, by identifying a subset of variables whose truth assignments uniquely define those of the other variables. In this work, we introduce an extended version of independent support, grouped independent support (GIS), and show how to reduce the GICS problem to the GIS problem. We then propose a new solving method for finding a GICS, based on finding a GIS. We show that the prior state-of-the-art approaches yield integer-linear programming (ILP) models whose sizes grow exponentially with the problem size and k, while our GIS encoding only grows polynomially with the problem size and k. While the ILP approach can solve the GICS problem on networks of at most 494 nodes, the GIS-based method can handle networks of up to 21 363 nodes; a ∼40× improvement. The GIS-based method shows up to a 520× improvement on the ILP-based method in terms of median solving time. For the majority of the instances that can be encoded and solved by both methods, the cardinality of the solution returned by the GIS-based method is less than 10% larger than the cardinality of the solution found by the ILP method. Anna L. D. Latour, Arunabha Sen, Kuldeep S. Meel |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2022 | Exact stochastic constraint optimisation with applications in network analysisabstractWe present an extensive study of methods for exactly solving stochastic constraint (optimisation) problems (SCPs) in network analysis. These problems are prevalent in science, governance and industry. The first method we study is generic and decomposes stochastic constraints into a multitude of smaller local constraints that are solved using a constraint programming (CP) or mixed-integer programming (MIP) solver. However, many SCPs are formulated on probability distributions with a monotonic property, meaning that adding a positive decision to a partial solution to the problem cannot cause a decrease in solution quality. The second method is specifically designed for solving global stochastic constraints on monotonic probability distributions (SCMDs) in CP. Both methods use knowledge compilation to obtain a decision diagram encoding of the relevant probability distributions, where we focus on ordered binary decision diagrams (OBDDs). We discuss theoretical advantages and disadvantages of these methods and evaluate them experimentally. We observed that global approaches to solving SCMDs outperform decomposition approaches from CP, and perform complementarily to MIP-based decomposition approaches, while scaling much more favourably with instance size. Both methods have many alternative design choices, as both knowledge compilation and constraint solvers are used in a single pipeline. To identify which configurations work best, we apply programming by optimisation. Specifically, we show how an automated algorithm configurator can be used to find optimised configurations of our pipeline. After configuration, our global SCMD solving pipeline outperforms its closest competitor (a MIP-based decomposition pipeline) on all test sets we considered by up to two orders of magnitude in terms of PAR10 scores. Anna L. D. Latour, Behrouz Babaki, Daniël Fokkinga, Marie Anastacio, Holger H. Hoos, Siegfried Nijssen |
Artif. Intell. | 1 |
| 2019 | Stochastic Constraint Propagation for Mining Probabilistic NetworksabstractA number of data mining problems on probabilistic networks can be modeled as Stochastic Constraint Optimization and Satisfaction Problems, i.e., problems that involve objectives or constraints with a stochastic component. Earlier methods for solving these problems used Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams (OBDDs) to represent constraints on probability distributions, which were decomposed into sets of smaller constraints and solved by Constraint Programming (CP) or Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) solvers. For the specific case of monotonic distributions, we propose an alternative method: a new propagator for a global OBDD-based constraint. We show that this propagator is (sub-)linear in the size of the OBDD, and maintains domain consistency. We experimentally evaluate the effectiveness of this global constraint in comparison to existing decomposition-based approaches, and show how this propagator can be used in combination with another data mining specific constraint present in CP systems. As test cases we use problems from the data mining literature. Anna L. D. Latour, Behrouz Babaki, Siegfried Nijssen |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2017 | Combining Stochastic Constraint Optimization and Probabilistic Programming - From Knowledge Compilation to Constraint Solving
Anna L. D. Latour, Behrouz Babaki, Anton Dries, Angelika Kimmig, Guy Van den Broeck, Siegfried Nijssen |
CP | 1 |