Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

S. Cliff Liu

dblp:242/9276 · also Sixue Cliff Liu, Sixue Liu · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
9ranked-venue papers
7as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · conflict

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 3 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 3 · 3 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 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.

Theoretical computer science
4 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 40% Mathematical optimization · 40% Computational complexity · 7%

Topics — the 13 heaviest of 14, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Automated reasoning and model checking
satisfiability
0.932018
Chain, Generalization of Covering Code, and Deterministic Algorithm for k-SAT · ICALP 2018
Should Algorithms for Random SAT and Max-SAT Be Different? · AAAI 2017
Local Search for Hard SAT Formulas: The Strength of the Polynomial Law · AAAI 2016
Mathematical optimization
continuous optimization
0.712023
Space-Efficient Interior Point Method, with Applications to Linear Programming and Maximum Weight Bipartite Matching · ICALP 2023
Mathematical optimization › numerical computation › numerical optimization › second-order methods
interior point methods
0.712023
Space-Efficient Interior Point Method, with Applications to Linear Programming and Maximum Weight Bipartite Matching · ICALP 2023
Automated reasoning and model checking › satisfiability
k-SAT
0.312018
Chain, Generalization of Covering Code, and Deterministic Algorithm for k-SAT · ICALP 2018
Mathematical optimization › combinatorial optimization
local search
0.312017
Should Algorithms for Random SAT and Max-SAT Be Different? · AAAI 2017
Automated reasoning and model checking › satisfiability
maximum satisfiability
0.312017
Should Algorithms for Random SAT and Max-SAT Be Different? · AAAI 2017
Algorithms and data structures › markov chains
random walk algorithm
0.312017
Should Algorithms for Random SAT and Max-SAT Be Different? · AAAI 2017
Automated reasoning and model checking › satisfiability
stochastic local search
0.212016
Local Search for Hard SAT Formulas: The Strength of the Polynomial Law · AAAI 2016
Mathematical optimization
linear programming
0.212023
Space-Efficient Interior Point Method, with Applications to Linear Programming and Maximum Weight Bipartite Matching · ICALP 2023
Graph algorithms and graph theory › graph matching
maximum weight bipartite matching
0.212023
Space-Efficient Interior Point Method, with Applications to Linear Programming and Maximum Weight Bipartite Matching · ICALP 2023
Coding theory
covering codes
0.112018
Chain, Generalization of Covering Code, and Deterministic Algorithm for k-SAT · ICALP 2018
Automated reasoning and model checking › satisfiability
random satisfiability
0.112017
Should Algorithms for Random SAT and Max-SAT Be Different? · AAAI 2017
Computational complexity › constraint satisfaction › SAT
random k-CNF
0.112016
Local Search for Hard SAT Formulas: The Strength of the Polynomial Law · AAAI 2016

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

linear programming · 0.3derandomized local search · 0.3branching algorithm · 0.3probabilistic approach · 0.3local search · 0.3stochastic local search · 0.2measure concentration · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Connected Components in Linear Work and Near-Optimal Time
abstract
Computing the connected components of a graph is a fundamental problem in algorithmic graph theory. A major question in this area is whether we can compute connected components in o(log n) parallel time. Recent works showed an affirmative answer in the Massively Parallel Computation (MPC) model for a wide class of graphs. Specifically, Behnezhad et al. (FOCS'19) showed that connected components can be computed in O(log d + log log n) rounds in the MPC model. More recently, Liu et al. (SPAA'20) showed that the same result can be achieved in the standard PRAM model but their result incurs Θ((m+n) ⋅ (log d + log log n)) work which is sub-optimal.
Alireza Farhadi 0001, S. Cliff Liu, Elaine Shi
SPAA2
2024 A novel Deep Reinforcement Learning based automated stock trading system using cascaded LSTM networks
Jie Zou 0008, Jiashu Lou, S. Cliff Liu
Expert Syst. Appl.4
2023 Space-Efficient Interior Point Method, with Applications to Linear Programming and Maximum Weight Bipartite Matching
S. Cliff Liu, Zhao Song 0002, Hengjie Zhang, Lichen Zhang 0003, Tianyi Zhou 0002
ICALP1
2020 Connected Components on a PRAM in Log Diameter Time
abstract
We present an O(log d + log logm/n n)-time randomized PRAM algorithm for computing the connected components of an n-vertex, m-edge undirected graph with maximum component diameter d. The algorithm runs on an ARBITRARY CRCW (concurrent-read, concurrent-write with arbitrary write resolution) PRAM using O(m) processors. The time bound holds with good probability.
S. Cliff Liu, Robert E. Tarjan, Peilin Zhong
SPAA1
2019 Lower Bounds for Small Ramsey Numbers on Hypergraphs
S. Cliff Liu
COCOON1
2018 Chain, Generalization of Covering Code, and Deterministic Algorithm for k-SAT
abstract
We present the current fastest deterministic algorithm for $k$-SAT, improving the upper bound $(2-2/k)^{n + o(n)}$ dues to Moser and Scheder [STOC'11]. The algorithm combines a branching algorithm with the derandomized local search, whose analysis relies on a special sequence of clauses called chain, and a generalization of covering code based on linear programming. We also provide a more ingenious branching algorithm for $3$-SAT to establish the upper bound $1.32793^n$, improved from $1.3303^n$.
S. Cliff Liu
ICALP1
2017 Should Algorithms for Random SAT and Max-SAT Be Different?
abstract
We analyze to what extent the random SAT and Max-SAT problems differ in their properties. Our findings suggest that for random k-CNF with ratio in a certain range, Max-SAT can be solved by any SAT algorithm with subexponential slowdown, while for formulae with ratios greater than some constant, algorithms under the random walk framework require substantially different heuristics. In light of these results, we propose a novel probabilistic approach for random Max-SAT called ProMS. Experimental results illustrate that ProMS outperforms many state-of-the-art local search solvers on random Max-SAT benchmarks.
S. Cliff Liu, Gerard de Melo
AAAI1
2016 Local Search for Hard SAT Formulas: The Strength of the Polynomial Law
abstract
Random k-CNF formulas at the anticipated k-SAT phase-transition point are prototypical hard k-SAT instances. We develop a stochastic local search algorithm and study it both theoretically and through a large-scale experimental study. The algorithm comes as a result of a systematic study that contrasts rates at which a certain measure concentration phenomenon occurs. This study yields a new stochastic rule for local search. A strong point of our contribution is the conceptual simplicity of our algorithm. More importantly, the empirical results overwhelmingly indicate that our algorithm outperforms the state-of-the-art. This includes a number of winners and medalist solvers from the recent SAT Competitions.
S. Cliff Liu, Periklis A. Papakonstantinou
AAAI1
2012 Network analyses of Beijing subways
abstract
By analyzing the topological structure of the subway network in Beijing and the people flowing in it, we build the `graph model based on the Sub-network Partition Algorithm' and define the `weighted average path length' to measure the time of the trips in each sub-network. The actual data from the survey proves the correctness of the model.
S. Cliff Liu
INDIN1