Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jonathan Halcrow
dblp:271/0769 · also Jonathan J. Halcrow
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
1as first author
6since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0005-5728-394XORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 1 first-author · 6 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 3 · 1 first-author · 2 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.
| Artificial intelligence
6 papers |
Graph learning · 58% Language models and text generation · 30% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 10% | |
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Graph algorithms and graph theory · 50% Computational complexity · 28% Algorithms and data structures · 22% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Data mining · 100% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Hardware accelerators and domain-specific architectures · 50% High-performance computing · 50% |
Topics — the 17 heaviest of 18, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Graph learning › graph reasoning
graph reasoning with language models |
1.5 | 2 | 2024 | Graph Reasoning with LLMs (GReaL) · KDD 2024 Talk like a Graph: Encoding Graphs for Large Language Models · ICLR 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model evaluation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Test of Time: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Temporal Reasoning · ICLR 2025 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
temporal reasoning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Test of Time: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Temporal Reasoning · ICLR 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › evaluation of language models › reasoning evaluation
temporal reasoning benchmark |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Test of Time: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Temporal Reasoning · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
algorithmic reasoning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Understanding Transformer Reasoning Capabilities via Graph Algorithms · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph reasoning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Graph Reasoning with LLMs (GReaL) · KDD 2024 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph representation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Talk like a Graph: Encoding Graphs for Large Language Models · ICLR 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
transformer reasoning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Understanding Transformer Reasoning Capabilities via Graph Algorithms · NeurIPS 2024 |
Graph algorithms and graph theory
graph connectivity |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Understanding Transformer Reasoning Capabilities via Graph Algorithms · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
network embedding |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | HUGE: Huge Unsupervised Graph Embeddings with TPUs · KDD 2023 |
Data mining
similarity graph construction |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Stars: Tera-Scale Graph Building for Clustering and Learning · NeurIPS 2022 |
Algorithms and data structures › similarity search › nearest neighbor search
approximate nearest neighbor search |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Stars: Tera-Scale Graph Building for Clustering and Learning · NeurIPS 2022 |
Graph algorithms and graph theory
graph algorithms |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Stars: Tera-Scale Graph Building for Clustering and Learning · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph construction |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Grale: Designing Networks for Graph Learning · KDD 2020 |
High-performance computing
large-scale graph processing |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | HUGE: Huge Unsupervised Graph Embeddings with TPUs · KDD 2023 |
Hardware accelerators and domain-specific architectures
machine learning accelerator |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | HUGE: Huge Unsupervised Graph Embeddings with TPUs · KDD 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
semi-supervised learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Grale: Designing Networks for Graph Learning · KDD 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
communication complexity · 1.5tensor processing unit · 1.3high-bandwidth memory · 1.3two-hop spanners · 1.1synthetic benchmark generation · 0.9large language model · 0.8graph encoding · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Test of Time: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Temporal ReasoningabstractLarge language models (LLMs) have showcased remarkable reasoning capabilities, yet they remain susceptible to errors, particularly in temporal reasoning tasks involving complex temporal logic. Existing research has explored LLM performance on temporal reasoning using diverse datasets and benchmarks. However, these studies often rely on real-world data that LLMs may have encountered during pre-training or employ anonymization techniques that can inadvertently introduce factual inconsistencies. In this work, we address these limitations by introducing novel synthetic datasets specifically designed to assess LLM temporal reasoning abilities in various scenarios. The diversity of question types across these datasets enables systematic investigation into the impact of the problem structure, size, question type, fact order, and other factors on LLM performance. Our findings provide valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of current LLMs in temporal reasoning tasks. To foster further research in this area, we will open-source the datasets and evaluation framework used in our experiments. Bahare Fatemi, Mehran Kazemi, Anton Tsitsulin, Karishma Malkan, Jinyeong Yim, John Palowitch, Sungyong Seo, Jonathan Halcrow, Bryan Perozzi |
ICLR | 8 |
| 2024 | Talk like a Graph: Encoding Graphs for Large Language ModelsabstractGraphs are a powerful tool for representing and analyzing complex relationships in real-world applications such as social networks, recommender systems, and computational finance. Reasoning on graphs is essential for drawing inferences about the relationships between entities in a complex system, and to identify hidden patterns and trends. Despite the remarkable progress in automated reasoning with natural text, reasoning on graphs with large language models (LLMs) remains an understudied problem. In this work, we perform the first comprehensive study of encoding graph-structured data as text for consumption by LLMs. We show that LLM performance on graph reasoning tasks varies on three fundamental levels: (1) the graph encoding method, (2) the nature of the graph task itself, and (3) interestingly, the very structure of the graph considered. These novel results provide valuable insight on strategies for encoding graphs as text. Using these insights we illustrate how the correct choice of encoders can boost performance on graph reasoning tasks inside LLMs by 4.8% to 61.8%, depending on the task. Bahare Fatemi, Jonathan Halcrow, Bryan Perozzi |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2024 | Graph Reasoning with LLMs (GReaL)abstractGraphs are a powerful tool for representing and analyzing complex relationships in real-world applications.Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities by advancing state-of-the-art on many language-based benchmarks.Their ability to process and understand natural language open exciting possibilities in various domains.Despite the remarkable progress in automated reasoning with natural text, reasoning on graphs with LLMs remains an understudied problem that has recently gained more attention.This tutorial builds upon recent advances in expressing reasoning problems through the lens of tasks on graph data.The first part of the tutorial will provide an in-depth discussion of techniques for representing graphs as inputs to LLMs.The second, hands-on, portion will demonstrate these techniques in a practical setting.As a learning outcome of participating in the tutorial, participants will be able to analyze graphs either on free-tier Colab or their local machines with the help of LLMs. Anton Tsitsulin, Bryan Perozzi, Bahare Fatemi, Jonathan Halcrow |
KDD | 4 |
| 2024 | Understanding Transformer Reasoning Capabilities via Graph AlgorithmsabstractWhich transformer scaling regimes are able to perfectly solve different classes of algorithmic problems? While tremendous empirical advances have been attained by transformer-based neural networks, a theoretical understanding of their algorithmic reasoning capabilities in realistic parameter regimes is lacking. We investigate this question in terms of the network’s depth, width, and number of extra tokens for algorithm execution. Our novel representational hierarchy separates 9 algorithmic reasoning problems into classes solvable by transformers in different realistic parameter scaling regimes. We prove that logarithmic depth is necessary and sufficient for tasks like graph connectivity, while single-layer transformers with small embedding dimensions can solve contextual retrieval tasks. We also support our theoretical analysis with ample empirical evidence using the GraphQA benchmark. These results show that transformers excel at many graph reasoning tasks, even outperforming specialized graph neural networks. Clayton Sanford, Bahare Fatemi, Ethan Hall, Anton Tsitsulin, Mehran Kazemi, Jonathan Halcrow, Bryan Perozzi, Vahab S. Mirrokni |
NeurIPS | 6 |
| 2023 | HUGE: Huge Unsupervised Graph Embeddings with TPUsabstractGraphs are a representation of structured data that captures the relationships between sets of objects. With the ubiquity of available network data, there is increasing industrial and academic need to quickly analyze graphs with billions of nodes and trillions of edges. A common first step for network understanding is Graph Embedding, the process of creating a continuous representation of nodes in a graph. A continuous representation is often more amenable, especially at scale, for solving downstream machine learning tasks such as classification, link prediction, and clustering. A high-performance graph embedding architecture leveraging Tensor Processing Units (TPUs) with configurable amounts of high-bandwidth memory is presented that simplifies the graph embedding problem and can scale to graphs with billions of nodes and trillions of edges. We verify the embedding space quality on real and synthetic large-scale datasets. Brandon A. Mayer, Anton Tsitsulin, Hendrik Fichtenberger, Jonathan Halcrow, Bryan Perozzi |
KDD | 4 |
| 2022 | Stars: Tera-Scale Graph Building for Clustering and LearningabstractA fundamental procedure in the analysis of massive datasets is the construction of similarity graphs. Such graphs play a key role for many downstream tasks, including clustering, classification, graph learning, and nearest neighbor search. For these tasks, it is critical to build graphs which are sparse yet still representative of the underlying data. The benefits of sparsity are twofold: firstly, constructing dense graphs is infeasible in practice for large datasets, and secondly, the runtime of downstream tasks is directly influenced by the sparsity of the similarity graph. In this work, we present Stars: a highly scalable method for building extremely sparse graphs via two-hop spanners, which are graphs where similar points are connected by a path of length at most two. Stars can construct two-hop spanners with significantly fewer similarity comparisons, which are a major bottleneck for learning based models where comparisons are expensive to evaluate. Theoretically, we demonstrate that Stars builds a graph in nearly-linear time, where approximate nearest neighbors are contained within two-hop neighborhoods. In practice, we have deployed Stars for multiple data sets allowing for graph building at the Tera-Scale, i.e., for graphs with hundreds of billions of nodes and tens of trillions of edges. We evaluate the performance of Stars for clustering and graph learning, and demonstrate 10~1000-fold improvements in pairwise similarity comparisons and significant running time speedups with negligible quality loss. CJ Carey, Jonathan Halcrow, Rajesh Jayaram, Vahab S. Mirrokni, Warren Schudy, Peilin Zhong |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2020 | Grale: Designing Networks for Graph LearningabstractHow can we find the right graph for semi-supervised learning? In real world applications, the choice of which edges to use for computation is the first step in any graph learning process. Interestingly, there are often many types of similarity available to choose as the edges between nodes, and the choice of edges can drastically affect the performance of downstream semi-supervised learning systems. However, despite the importance of graph design, most of the literature assumes that the graph is static. Jonathan Halcrow, Alexandru Mosoi, Sam Ruth, Bryan Perozzi |
KDD | 1 |