Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sikander Randhawa
dblp:232/1963
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Theory of computation · 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.
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Approximation and online algorithms · 67% Mathematical optimization · 33% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Optimization for machine learning · 91% Learning theory · 9% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Mathematical optimization
multiplicative weights update |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Optimal anytime regret for two experts · FOCS 2020 |
Approximation and online algorithms
online learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Optimal anytime regret for two experts · FOCS 2020 |
Approximation and online algorithms › online learning
prediction with expert advice |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Optimal anytime regret for two experts · FOCS 2020 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › optimization › continuous optimization
non-smooth optimization |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Tight analyses for non-smooth stochastic gradient descent · COLT 2019 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
stochastic gradient descent |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Tight analyses for non-smooth stochastic gradient descent · COLT 2019 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds
high probability bounds |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Tight analyses for non-smooth stochastic gradient descent · COLT 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
stochastic calculus · 0.4continuous-time analysis · 0.4suffix averaging · 0.4stochastic gradient descent · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Optimal anytime regret for two expertsabstractThe multiplicative weights method is an algorithm for the problem of prediction with expert advice. It achieves the optimal regret asymptotically if the number of experts is large, and the time horizon is known in advance. Optimal algorithms are also known if there are exactly two, three or four experts, and the time horizon is known in advance. In the anytime setting, where the time horizon is not known in advance, algorithms can be obtained by the “doubling trick”, but they are not optimal, let alone practical. No minimax optimal algorithm was previously known in the anytime setting, regardless of the number of experts. We design the first minimax optimal algorithm for minimizing regret in the anytime setting. We consider the case of two experts, and prove that the optimal regret γ√t/2 is at all time steps t, where γ is a natural constant that arose 35 years ago in studying fundamental properties of Brownian motion. The algorithm is designed by considering a continuous analogue of the regret problem, which is solved using ideas from stochastic calculus. This is the extended abstract of the paper. The full paper can be found in [arXiv:2002.08994]. Nicholas J. A. Harvey, Christopher Liaw, Edwin A. Perkins, Sikander Randhawa |
FOCS | 4 |
| 2019 | Tight analyses for non-smooth stochastic gradient descentabstractConsider the problem of minimizing functions that are Lipschitz and strongly convex, but not necessarily differentiable. We prove that after $T$ steps of stochastic gradient descent, the error of the final iterate is $O(\log(T)/T)$ \emph{with high probability}. We also construct a function from this class for which the error of the final iterate of \emph{deterministic} gradient descent is $\Omega(\log(T)/T)$. This shows that the upper bound is tight and that, in this setting, the last iterate of stochastic gradient descent has the same general error rate (with high probability) as deterministic gradient descent. This resolves both open questions posed by Shamir (2012). An intermediate step of our analysis proves that the suffix averaging method achieves error $O(1/T)$ \emph{with high probability}, which is optimal (for any first-order optimization method). This improves results of Rakhlin et al. (2012) and Hazan and Kale (2014), both of which achieved error $O(1/T)$, but only in expectation, and achieved a high probability error bound of $O(\log \log(T)/T)$, which is suboptimal. Nicholas J. A. Harvey, Christopher Liaw, Yaniv Plan, Sikander Randhawa |
COLT | 4 |