Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Krishna Dusad
dblp:217/2238
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous 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
1 paper |
Vision and language · 50% Representation and self-supervised learning · 50% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Information retrieval · 77% Recommender systems · 23% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Usability and user experience research · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Information retrieval
ranking |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | How do People Sort by Ratings? · CHI 2019 |
Usability and user experience research
user perception |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | How do People Sort by Ratings? · CHI 2019 |
Recommender systems
rating aggregation |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | How do People Sort by Ratings? · CHI 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
statistical ordering · 0.8online study · 0.8crowd workers · 0.8metric learning · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | How do People Sort by Ratings?abstractSorting items by user rating is a fundamental interaction pattern of the modern Web, used to rank products (Amazon), posts (Reddit), businesses (Yelp), movies (YouTube), and more. To implement this pattern, designers must take in a distribution of ratings for each item and define a sensible total ordering over them. This is a challenging problem, since each distribution is drawn from a distinct sample population, rendering the most straightforward method of sorting --- comparing averages --- unreliable when the samples are small or of different sizes. Several statistical orderings for binary ratings have been proposed in the literature (e.g., based on the Wilson score, or Laplace smoothing), each attempting to account for the uncertainty introduced by sampling. In this paper, we study this uncertainty through the lens of human perception, and ask "How do people sort by ratings?" In an online study, we collected 48,000 item-ranking pairs from 4,000 crowd workers along with 4,800 rationales, and analyzed the results to understand how users make decisions when comparing rated items. Our results shed light on the cognitive models users employ to choose between rating distributions, which sorts of comparisons are most contentious, and how the presentation of rating information affects users' preferences. Jerry O. Talton, Krishna Dusad, Konstantinos Koiliaris, Ranjitha Kumar |
CHI | 2 |
| 2018 | Learning Type-Aware Embeddings for Fashion Compatibility
Mariya I. Vasileva, Bryan A. Plummer, Krishna Dusad, Shreya Rajpal, Ranjitha Kumar, David A. Forsyth |
ECCV (16) | 3 |