EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Eric P. Lehman
dblp:224/1265
· DBLP profile ↗
11ranked-venue papers
3as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Theory of computation · 9 · 2 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 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
7 papers |
Coding theory · 44% Computational complexity · 38% Algorithms and data structures · 8% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Trustworthy machine learning · 77% Language models and text generation · 23% | |
| Computer networks
3 papers |
Internet architecture and protocols · 100% |
Topics — the 17 heaviest of 19, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Models · ACL 2020 |
Coding theory › source coding
grammar-based compression |
0.1 | 3 | 2005 | The smallest grammar problem · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2005 Approximating the smallest grammar: Kolmogorov complexity in natural models · STOC 2002 Approximation algorithms for grammar-based compression · SODA 2002 |
Internet architecture and protocols
network coding |
0.1 | 2 | 2005 | Network coding: does the model need tuning? · SODA 2005 Complexity classification of network information flow problems · SODA 2004 |
Coding theory › source coding › grammar-based compression
smallest grammar problem |
0.1 | 2 | 2005 | The smallest grammar problem · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2005 Approximating the smallest grammar: Kolmogorov complexity in natural models · STOC 2002 |
Computational complexity › property testing › boolean function testing
monotonicity testing |
0.1 | 2 | 2002 | Monotonicity testing over general poset domains · STOC 2002 Testing Monotonicity · FOCS 1998 |
Computational complexity
property testing |
0.1 | 2 | 2002 | Monotonicity testing over general poset domains · STOC 2002 Testing Monotonicity · FOCS 1998 |
Computational complexity
hardness of approximation |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | The smallest grammar problem · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2005 |
Coding theory
network coding |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Network coding: does the model need tuning? · SODA 2005 |
Algorithms and data structures › sequence algorithms
string algorithms |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | The smallest grammar problem · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2005 |
Computational complexity › constraint satisfaction
complexity classification |
0.0 | 1 | 2004 | Complexity classification of network information flow problems · SODA 2004 |
Combinatorics and discrete mathematics
partial orders |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Monotonicity testing over general poset domains · STOC 2002 |
Computational complexity
query complexity |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Monotonicity testing over general poset domains · STOC 2002 |
Coding theory
source coding |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Approximation algorithms for grammar-based compression · SODA 2002 |
Distributed systems › peer-to-peer systems
consistent hashing |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Consistent Hashing and Random Trees: Distributed Caching Protocols for Relieving Hot Spots on the World Wide Web · STOC 1997 |
Distributed systems
distributed caching |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Consistent Hashing and Random Trees: Distributed Caching Protocols for Relieving Hot Spots on the World Wide Web · STOC 1997 |
Computational complexity
kolmogorov complexity |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Approximating the smallest grammar: Kolmogorov complexity in natural models · STOC 2002 |
Internet architecture and protocols
world wide web |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Consistent Hashing and Random Trees: Distributed Caching Protocols for Relieving Hot Spots on the World Wide Web · STOC 1997 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
reduction · 0.1approximation algorithm · 0.1network coding · 0.1model analysis · 0.1complexity classification · 0.1random tree · 0.0lower bound · 0.0grammar compression · 0.0context-free grammar · 0.0query complexity · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Does BERT Pretrained on Clinical Notes Reveal Sensitive Data?abstractEric Lehman, Sarthak Jain, Karl Pichotta, Yoav Goldberg, Byron Wallace. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 2021. Eric P. Lehman, Karl Pichotta, Yoav Goldberg, Byron C. Wallace |
NAACL-HLT | 1 |
| 2020 | ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP ModelsabstractJay DeYoung, Sarthak Jain, Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Eric Lehman, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, Byron C. Wallace. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2020. Jay DeYoung, Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Eric P. Lehman, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, Byron C. Wallace |
ACL | 4 |
| 2009 | 3.5-Way Cuckoo Hashing for the Price of 2-and-a-Bit
Eric P. Lehman, Rina Panigrahy |
ESA | 1 |
| 2005 | Network coding: does the model need tuning?
April Rasala Lehman, Eric P. Lehman |
SODA | 2 |
| 2005 | The smallest grammar problemabstractThis paper addresses the smallest grammar problem: What is the smallest context-free grammar that generates exactly one given string /spl sigma/? This is a natural question about a fundamental object connected to many fields such as data compression, Kolmogorov complexity, pattern identification, and addition chains. Due to the problem's inherent complexity, our objective is to find an approximation algorithm which finds a small grammar for the input string. We focus attention on the approximation ratio of the algorithm (and implicitly, the worst case behavior) to establish provable performance guarantees and to address shortcomings in the classical measure of redundancy in the literature. Our first results are concern the hardness of approximating the smallest grammar problem. Most notably, we show that every efficient algorithm for the smallest grammar problem has approximation ratio at least 8569/8568 unless P=NP. We then bound approximation ratios for several of the best known grammar-based compression algorithms, including LZ78, B ISECTION, SEQUENTIAL, LONGEST MATCH, GREEDY, and RE-PAIR. Among these, the best upper bound we show is O(n/sup 1/2/). We finish by presenting two novel algorithms with exponentially better ratios of O(log/sup 3/n) and O(log(n/m/sup */)), where m/sup */ is the size of the smallest grammar for that input. The latter algorithm highlights a connection between grammar-based compression and LZ77. Moses Charikar, Eric P. Lehman, Rina Panigrahy, Manoj Prabhakaran 0001, Amit Sahai, Abhi Shelat |
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory | 2 |
| 2004 | Complexity classification of network information flow problems
April Rasala Lehman, Eric P. Lehman |
SODA | 2 |
| 2002 | Approximation algorithms for grammar-based compression
Eric P. Lehman, Abhi Shelat |
SODA | 1 |
| 2002 | Approximating the smallest grammar: Kolmogorov complexity in natural modelsabstractWe consider the problem of finding the smallest context-free grammar that generates exactly one given string of length n. The size of this grammar is of theoretical interest as an efficiently computable variant of Kolmogorov complexity. The problem is of practical importance in areas such as data compression and pattern extraction.The smallest grammar is known to be hard to approximate to within a constant factor, and an o(logn/log logn) approximation would require progress on a long-standing algebraic problem [10]. Previously, the best proved approximation ratio was O(n1/2) for the Bisection algorithm [8]. Our main result is an exponential improvement of this ratio; we give an O(log (n/g*)) approximation algorithm, where g* is the size of the smallest grammar.We then consider other computable variants of Kolomogorov complexity. In particular we give an O(log2 n) approximation for the smallest non-deterministic finite automaton with advice that produces a given string. We also apply our techniques to "advice-grammars" and "edit-grammars", two other natural models of string complexity. Moses Charikar, Eric P. Lehman, Rina Panigrahy, Manoj Prabhakaran 0001, April Rasala Lehman, Amit Sahai, Abhi Shelat |
STOC | 2 |
| 2002 | Monotonicity testing over general poset domainsabstractThe field of property testing studies algorithms that distinguish, using a small number of queries, between inputs which satisfy a given property, and those that are 'far' from satisfying the property. Testing properties that are defined in terms of monotonicity has been extensively investigated, primarily in the context of the monotonicity of a sequence of integers, or the monotonicity of a function over the n-dimensional hypercube {1,…,m}n. These works resulted in monotonicity testers whose query complexity is at most polylogarithmic in the size of the domain.We show that in its most general setting, testing that Boolean functions are close to monotone is equivalent, with respect to the number of required queries, to several other testing problems in logic and graph theory. These problems include: testing that a Boolean assignment of variables is close to an assignment that satisfies a specific 2-CNF formula, testing that a set of vertices is close to one that is a vertex cover of a specific graph, and testing that a set of vertices is close to a clique.We then investigate the query complexity of monotonicity testing of both Boolean and integer functions over general partial orders. We give algorithms and lower bounds for the general problem, as well as for some interesting special cases. In proving a general lower bound, we construct graphs with combinatorial properties that may be of independent interest. Eldar Fischer, Eric P. Lehman, Ilan Newman, Sofya Raskhodnikova, Ronitt Rubinfeld, Alex Samorodnitsky |
STOC | 2 |
| 1998 | Testing Monotonicity
Oded Goldreich 0001, Shafi Goldwasser, Eric P. Lehman, Dana Ron |
FOCS | 3 |
| 1997 | Consistent Hashing and Random Trees: Distributed Caching Protocols for Relieving Hot Spots on the World Wide WebabstractWe describe a family of caching protocols for distrib-uted networks that can be used to decrease or eliminate the occurrence of hot spots in the network. Our protocols are particularly designed for use with very large networks such as the Internet, where delays caused by hot spots can be severe, and where it is not feasible for every server to have complete information about the current state of the entire network. The protocols are easy to implement using existing network protocols such as TCP/IP, and require very little overhead. The protocols work with local control, make efficient use of existing resources, and scale gracefully as the network grows. Our caching protocols are based on a special kind of hashing that we call consistent hashing. Roughly speaking, a consistent hash function is one which changes minimally as the range of the function changes. Through the development of good consistent hash functions, we are able to develop caching protocols which do not require users to have a current or even consistent view of the network. We believe that consistent hash functions may eventually prove to be useful in other applications such as distributed name servers and/or quorum systems. David R. Karger, Eric P. Lehman, Frank Thomson Leighton, Rina Panigrahy, Matthew S. Levine, Daniel Lewin 0001 |
STOC | 2 |