EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ishita Prasad
dblp:264/7056
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Human-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
2 papers |
Vision and language · 30% Robot manipulation · 23% Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 23% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers |
Human-robot interaction · 61% User interface design and tools · 30% Usability and user experience research · 9% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Empirical software engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computer vision › 3D vision › 3d object detection
3d object localization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | LOCATE 3D: Real-World Object Localization via Self-Supervised Learning in 3D · ICML 2025 |
Robotics › Robot manipulation › human-robot interaction
human-robot collaboration |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | PARTNR: A Benchmark for Planning and Reasoning in Embodied Multi-agent Tasks · ICLR 2025 |
Computer vision › Vision and language › visual grounding
referential grounding |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | LOCATE 3D: Real-World Object Localization via Self-Supervised Learning in 3D · ICML 2025 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
task planning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | PARTNR: A Benchmark for Planning and Reasoning in Embodied Multi-agent Tasks · ICLR 2025 |
Human-robot interaction
collaborative task |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | PARTNR: A Benchmark for Planning and Reasoning in Embodied Multi-agent Tasks · ICLR 2025 |
Empirical software engineering › end-user programming
computational notebooks |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | What's Wrong with Computational Notebooks? Pain Points, Needs, and Design Opportunities · CHI 2020 |
Empirical software engineering
data science workflows |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | What's Wrong with Computational Notebooks? Pain Points, Needs, and Design Opportunities · CHI 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
simulation-in-the-loop · 1.7large language model · 1.7fine-tuning · 1.7self-supervised learning · 0.9masked prediction · 0.9foundation model features · 0.9survey · 0.9semi-structured interviews · 0.9mixed-methods study · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | PARTNR: A Benchmark for Planning and Reasoning in Embodied Multi-agent TasksabstractWe present a benchmark for Planning And Reasoning Tasks in humaN-Robot collaboration (PARTNR) designed to study human-robot coordination in household activities. PARTNR tasks exhibit characteristics of everyday tasks, such as spatial, temporal, and heterogeneous agent capability constraints. We employ a semi-automated task generation pipeline using Large Language Models (LLMs), incorporating simulation-in-the-loop for the grounding and verification. PARTNR stands as the largest benchmark of its kind, comprising 100,000 natural language tasks, spanning 60 houses and 5,819 unique objects. We analyze state-of-the-art LLMs on PARTNR tasks, across the axes of planning, perception and skill execution. The analysis reveals significant limitations in SoTA models, such as poor coordination and failures in task tracking and recovery from errors. When LLMs are paired with 'real' humans, they require 1.5x as many steps as two humans collaborating and 1.1x more steps than a single human, underscoring the potential for improvement in these models. We further show that fine-tuning smaller LLMs with planning data can achieve performance on par with models 9 times larger, while being 8.6x faster at inference. Overall, PARTNR highlights significant challenges facing collaborative embodied agents and aims to drive research in this direction. Matthew Chang, Gunjan Chhablani, Alexander Clegg, Mikael Dallaire Cote, Ruta Desai, Michal Hlavac, Vladimir Karashchuk, Jacob Krantz, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Priyam Parashar, Siddharth Patki, Ishita Prasad, Xavier Puig, Akshara Rai, Ram Ramrakhya, Daniel Tran, Joanne Truong, John M. Turner, Eric Undersander, Tsung-Yen Yang |
ICLR | 12 |
| 2025 | LOCATE 3D: Real-World Object Localization via Self-Supervised Learning in 3DabstractWe present LOCATE 3D, a model for localizing objects in 3D scenes from referring expressions like "the small coffee table between the sofa and the lamp." LOCATE 3D sets a new state-of-the-art on standard referential grounding benchmarks and showcases robust generalization capabilities. Notably, LOCATE 3D operates directly on sensor observation streams (posed RGB-D frames), enabling real-world deployment on robots and AR devices. Key to our approach is 3D-JEPA, a novel self-supervised learning (SSL) algorithm applicable to sensor point clouds. It takes as input a 3D pointcloud featurized using 2D foundation models (CLIP, DINO). Subsequently, masked prediction in latent space is employed as a pretext task to aid the self-supervised learning of contextualized pointcloud features. Once trained, the 3D-JEPA encoder is finetuned alongside a language-conditioned decoder to jointly predict 3D masks and bounding boxes. Additionally, we introduce LOCATE 3D DATASET, a new dataset for 3D referential grounding, spanning multiple capture setups with over 130K annotations. This enables a systematic study of generalization capabilities as well as a stronger model. Code, models and dataset can be found at the project website: locate3d.atmeta.com Paul McVay, Sergio Arnaud, Ada Martin, Arjun Majumdar, Krishna Murthy Jatavallabhula, Phillip Thomas, Ruslan Partsey, Daniel Dugas, Abha Gejji, Alexander Sax, Vincent-Pierre Berges, Mikael Henaff, Ang Cao, Ishita Prasad, Mrinal Kalakrishnan, Michael G. Rabbat, Nicolas Ballas, Mido Assran, Oleksandr Maksymets, Aravind Rajeswaran |
ICML | 15 |
| 2020 | What's Wrong with Computational Notebooks? Pain Points, Needs, and Design OpportunitiesabstractComputational notebooks - such as Azure, Databricks, and Jupyter - are a popular, interactive paradigm for data scientists to author code, analyze data, and interleave visualizations, all within a single document. Nevertheless, as data scientists incorporate more of their activities into notebooks, they encounter unexpected difficulties, or pain points, that impact their productivity and disrupt their workflow. Through a systematic, mixed-methods study using semi-structured interviews (n=20) and survey (n=156) with data scientists, we catalog nine pain points when working with notebooks. Our findings suggest that data scientists face numerous pain points throughout the entire workflow - from setting up notebooks to deploying to production - across many notebook environments. Our data scientists report essential notebook requirements, such as supporting data exploration and visualization. The results of our study inform and inspire the design of computational notebooks. Souti Chattopadhyay, Ishita Prasad, Austin Z. Henley, Anita Sarma, Titus Barik |
CHI | 2 |