EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Joseph K. Bradley
dblp:21/1442 · also Joseph Kurata Bradley
· DBLP profile ↗
10ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 8 · 3 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1Applied, 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.
| Artificial intelligence
6 papers |
Learning theory · 33% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 18% Kernel, tree and ensemble methods · 18% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers |
Query processing and optimization · 34% Data models and query languages · 34% Data mining · 12% | |
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Mathematical optimization · 60% Information theory · 40% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers |
Cloud and datacenter computing · 36% Distributed systems · 36% Parallel and multicore computing · 28% |
Topics — the 22 heaviest of 24, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
decision tree learning |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Yggdrasil: An Optimized System for Training Deep Decision Trees at Scale · NIPS 2016 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
machine learning libraries |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | MLlib: Machine Learning in Apache Spark · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › statistical estimation
minimax estimation |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Estimation from Pairwise Comparisons: Sharp Minimax Bounds with Topology Dependence · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › pairwise learning
pairwise comparison |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Estimation from Pairwise Comparisons: Sharp Minimax Bounds with Topology Dependence · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016 |
Information theory › estimation theory › estimation bounds
minimax bounds |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Estimation from Pairwise Comparisons: Sharp Minimax Bounds with Topology Dependence · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016 |
Query processing and optimization › query optimization › query optimizer architecture
query optimizer extensibility |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Spark SQL: Relational Data Processing in Spark · SIGMOD Conference 2015 |
Mathematical optimization › combinatorial optimization
greedy algorithm |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Parallel Double Greedy Submodular Maximization · NIPS 2014 |
Mathematical optimization › submodular optimization
submodular maximization |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Parallel Double Greedy Submodular Maximization · NIPS 2014 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
coordinate descent |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Parallel Coordinate Descent for L1-Regularized Loss Minimization · ICML 2011 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
parallel optimization |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Parallel Coordinate Descent for L1-Regularized Loss Minimization · ICML 2011 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured prediction
conditional random field |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Learning Tree Conditional Random Fields · ICML 2010 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models
graphical models |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Learning Tree Conditional Random Fields · ICML 2010 |
Data mining › predictive modeling › classification › ensemble learning
tree ensembles |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | Yggdrasil: An Optimized System for Training Deep Decision Trees at Scale · NIPS 2016 |
Cloud and datacenter computing
cluster resource management and scheduling |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | MLlib: Machine Learning in Apache Spark · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016 |
Distributed systems
distributed data processing |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | MLlib: Machine Learning in Apache Spark · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016 |
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods › ensemble learning
boosting |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | FilterBoost: Regression and Classification on Large Datasets · NIPS 2007 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › density estimation
conditional density estimation |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | FilterBoost: Regression and Classification on Large Datasets · NIPS 2007 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
PAC learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | FilterBoost: Regression and Classification on Large Datasets · NIPS 2007 |
Distributed and cloud data management › federated database
query federation |
0.1 | 1 | 2015 | Spark SQL: Relational Data Processing in Spark · SIGMOD Conference 2015 |
Parallel and multicore computing
parallel algorithms |
0.1 | 1 | 2014 | Parallel Double Greedy Submodular Maximization · NIPS 2014 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › regularization › sparse regularization
l1 regularization |
0.0 | 1 | 2011 | Parallel Coordinate Descent for L1-Regularized Loss Minimization · ICML 2011 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
structured prediction |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Learning Tree Conditional Random Fields · ICML 2010 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
vertical partitioning · 0.5thurstone model · 0.5sparse bitvectors · 0.5linear algebra primitives · 0.5distributed optimization · 0.5bradley-terry-luce model · 0.5double greedy algorithm · 0.4query optimization rules · 0.2code generation · 0.2parallel computing · 0.1coordinate descent · 0.1logistic regression · 0.1boosting · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Yggdrasil: An Optimized System for Training Deep Decision Trees at ScaleabstractDeep distributed decision trees and tree ensembles have grown in importance due to the need to model increasingly large datasets. However, PLANET, the standard distributed tree learning algorithm implemented in systems such as \xgboost and Spark MLlib, scales poorly as data dimensionality and tree depths grow. We present Yggdrasil, a new distributed tree learning method that outperforms existing methods by up to 24x. Unlike PLANET, Yggdrasil is based on vertical partitioning of the data (i.e., partitioning by feature), along with a set of optimized data structures to reduce the CPU and communication costs of training. Yggdrasil (1) trains directly on compressed data for compressible features and labels; (2) introduces efficient data structures for training on uncompressed data; and (3) minimizes communication between nodes by using sparse bitvectors. Moreover, while PLANET approximates split points through feature binning, Yggdrasil does not require binning, and we analytically characterize the impact of this approximation. We evaluate Yggdrasil against the MNIST 8M dataset and a high-dimensional dataset at Yahoo; for both, Yggdrasil is faster by up to an order of magnitude. Firas Abuzaid, Joseph K. Bradley, Feynman T. Liang, Andrew Feng, Lee Yang, Matei Zaharia, Ameet Talwalkar |
NIPS | 2 |
| 2016 | MLlib: Machine Learning in Apache SparkabstractApache Spark is a popular open-source platform for large-scale data processing that is well-suited for iterative machine learning tasks. In this paper we present MLlib, Spark's open- source distributed machine learning library. MLlib provides efficient functionality for a wide range of learning settings and includes several underlying statistical, optimization, and linear algebra primitives. Shipped with Spark, MLlib supports several languages and provides a high-level API that leverages Spark's rich ecosystem to simplify the development of end-to-end machine learning pipelines. MLlib has experienced a rapid growth due to its vibrant open-source community of over 140 contributors, and includes extensive documentation to support further growth and to let users quickly get up to speed. Joseph K. Bradley, Burak Yavuz, Evan Randall Sparks, Shivaram Venkataraman, Davies Liu, Jeremy Freeman, D. B. Tsai, Manish Amde, Sean Owen, Doris Xin, Reynold Xin, Michael J. Franklin, Reza Bosagh Zadeh, Matei Zaharia, Ameet Talwalkar |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 2 |
| 2016 | Estimation from Pairwise Comparisons: Sharp Minimax Bounds with Topology DependenceabstractData in the form of pairwise comparisons arises in many domains, including preference elicitation, sporting competitions, and peer grading among others. We consider parametric ordinal models for such pairwise comparison data involving a latent vector $w^* \in \mathbb{R}^d$ that represents the âqualitiesâ of the $d$ items being compared; this class of models includes the two most widely used parametric models---the Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) and the Thurstone models. Working within a standard minimax framework, we provide tight upper and lower bounds on the optimal error in estimating the quality score vector $w^*$ under this class of models. The bounds depend on the topology of the comparison graph induced by the subset of pairs being compared, via the spectrum of the Laplacian of the comparison graph. Thus, in settings where the subset of pairs may be chosen, our results provide principled guidelines for making this choice. Finally, we compare these error rates to those under cardinal measurement models and show that the error rates in the ordinal and cardinal settings have identical scalings apart from constant pre- factors. Nihar B. Shah, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, Joseph K. Bradley, Abhay Parekh, Kannan Ramchandran, Martin J. Wainwright |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 3 |
| 2015 | Estimation from Pairwise Comparisons: Sharp Minimax Bounds with Topology DependenceabstractConsider the problem of identifying the underlying qualities of a set of items based on measuring noisy comparisons between pairs of items. The Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) and Thurstone models are the most widely used parametric models for such pairwise comparison data. Working within a standard minimax framework, this paper provides sharp upper and lower bounds on the optimal error in estimating the underlying qualities under the BTL and the Thurstone models. These bounds are are topology-aware, meaning that they change qualitatively depending on the comparison graph induced by the subset of pairs being compared. Thus, in settings where the subset of pairs may be chosen, our results provide some principled guidelines for making this choice. Finally, we compare these error rates to those under cardinal measurement models and show that the error rates in the ordinal and cardinal settings have identical scalings apart from constant pre-factors. We use this result to investigate the relative merits of cardinal and ordinal measurement schemes. Nihar B. Shah, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, Joseph K. Bradley, Abhay Parekh, Kannan Ramchandran, Martin J. Wainwright |
AISTATS | 3 |
| 2015 | Spark SQL: Relational Data Processing in SparkabstractSpark SQL is a new module in Apache Spark that integrates relational processing with Spark's functional programming API. Built on our experience with Shark, Spark SQL lets Spark programmers leverage the benefits of relational processing (e.g. declarative queries and optimized storage), and lets SQL users call complex analytics libraries in Spark (e.g. machine learning). Compared to previous systems, Spark SQL makes two main additions. First, it offers much tighter integration between relational and procedural processing, through a declarative DataFrame API that integrates with procedural Spark code. Second, it includes a highly extensible optimizer, Catalyst, built using features of the Scala programming language, that makes it easy to add composable rules, control code generation, and define extension points. Using Catalyst, we have built a variety of features (e.g. schema inference for JSON, machine learning types, and query federation to external databases) tailored for the complex needs of modern data analysis. We see Spark SQL as an evolution of both SQL-on-Spark and of Spark itself, offering richer APIs and optimizations while keeping the benefits of the Spark programming model. Michael Armbrust, Reynold Xin, Cheng Lian 0001, Yin Huai, Davies Liu, Joseph K. Bradley, Tomer Kaftan, Michael J. Franklin, Ali Ghodsi 0002, Matei Zaharia |
SIGMOD Conference | 6 |
| 2014 | The SPRIGHT algorithm for robust sparse Hadamard TransformsabstractIn this paper, we consider the problem of computing a K-sparse N-point Hadamard Transforms (HT) from noisy time domain samples, where K = O(Nα) scales sub-linearly in N for some α ∈ (0; 1). The SParse Robust Iterative Graph-based Hadamard Transform (SPRIGHT) algorithm is proposed to recover the sparse HT coefficients in a stable manner that is robust to additive Gaussian noise. In particular, it is shown that the K-sparse HT of the signal can be reconstructed from noisy time domain samples with a vanishing error probability using the same sample complexity O(K logN) as in the noiseless case of [1] and computational complexity1O(N logN). Last but not least, given the complexity orders of the SPRIGHT algorithm, our numerical experiments further validate that the big-Oh constants in the complexity are small. Xiao Li 0022, Joseph K. Bradley, Sameer Pawar, Kannan Ramchandran |
ISIT | 2 |
| 2014 | Parallel Double Greedy Submodular Maximization
Xinghao Pan, Stefanie Jegelka, Joseph Gonzalez 0001, Joseph K. Bradley, Michael I. Jordan |
NIPS | 4 |
| 2011 | Parallel Coordinate Descent for L1-Regularized Loss Minimization
Joseph K. Bradley, Aapo Kyrola, Danny Bickson, Carlos Guestrin |
ICML | 1 |
| 2010 | Learning Tree Conditional Random Fields
Joseph K. Bradley, Carlos Guestrin |
ICML | 1 |
| 2007 | FilterBoost: Regression and Classification on Large DatasetsabstractWe study boosting in the filtering setting, where the booster draws examples from an oracle instead of using a fixed training set and so may train efficiently on very large datasets. Our algorithm, which is based on a logistic regression technique proposed by Collins, Schapire, & Singer, requires fewer assumptions to achieve bounds equivalent to or better than previous work. Moreover, we give the first proof that the algorithm of Collins et al. is a strong PAC learner, albeit within the filtering setting. Our proofs demonstrate the algorithm’s strong theoretical proper- ties for both classification and conditional probability estimation, and we validate these results through extensive experiments. Empirically, our algorithm proves more robust to noise and overfitting than batch boosters in conditional probability estimation and proves competitive in classification. Joseph K. Bradley, Robert E. Schapire |
NIPS | 1 |