Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Anton Lykov
dblp:274/7200
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 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.
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Data integration and cleaning · 100% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Trustworthy machine learning · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Computational complexity · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Data integration and cleaning › table understanding › table annotation
column type annotation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | CHORUS: Foundation Models for Unified Data Discovery and Exploration · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2024 |
Data integration and cleaning
data discovery |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | CHORUS: Foundation Models for Unified Data Discovery and Exploration · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › attribution methods
feature attribution |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | On the Tractability of SHAP Explanations · AAAI 2021 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | On the Tractability of SHAP Explanations · AAAI 2021 |
Computational complexity › complexity of reasoning
complexity of explanation |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | On the Tractability of SHAP Explanations · AAAI 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
probabilistic inference · 1.0game theory · 1.0large language model · 0.8foundation model · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | CHORUS: Foundation Models for Unified Data Discovery and ExplorationabstractWe apply foundation models to data discovery and exploration tasks. Foundation models are large language models (LLMS) that show promising performance on a range of diverse tasks unrelated to their training. We show that these models are highly applicable to the data discovery and data exploration domain. When carefully used, they have superior capability on three representative tasks: table-class detection, column-type annotation and join-column prediction. On all three tasks, we show that a foundation-model-based approach outperforms the task-specific models and so the state of the art. Further, our approach often surpasses human-expert task performance. We investigate the fundamental characteristics of this approach including generalizability to several foundation models and the impact of non-determinism on the outputs. All in all, this suggests a future direction in which disparate data management tasks can be unified under foundation models. Moe Kayali, Anton Lykov, Ilias Fountalis, Nikolaos Vasiloglou, Dan Olteanu, Dan Suciu |
Proc. VLDB Endow. | 2 |
| 2022 | On the Tractability of SHAP ExplanationsabstractSHAP explanations are a popular feature-attribution mechanism for explainable AI. They use game-theoretic notions to measure the influence of individual features on the prediction of a machine learning model. Despite a lot of recent interest from both academia and industry, it is not known whether SHAP explanations of common machine learning models can be computed efficiently. In this paper, we establish the complexity of computing the SHAP explanation in three important settings. First, we consider fully-factorized data distributions, and show that the complexity of computing the SHAP explanation is the same as the complexity of computing the expected value of the model. This fully-factorized setting is often used to simplify the SHAP computation, yet our results show that the computation can be intractable for commonly used models such as logistic regression. Going beyond fully-factorized distributions, we show that computing SHAP explanations is already intractable for a very simple setting: computing SHAP explanations of trivial classifiers over naive Bayes distributions. Finally, we show that even computing SHAP over the empirical distribution is #P-hard. Guy Van den Broeck, Anton Lykov, Maximilian Schleich, Dan Suciu |
J. Artif. Intell. Res. | 2 |
| 2021 | On the Tractability of SHAP ExplanationsabstractSHAP explanations are a popular feature-attribution mechanism for explainable AI. They use game-theoretic notions to measure the influence of individual features on the prediction of a machine learning model. Despite a lot of recent interest from both academia and industry, it is not known whether SHAP explanations of common machine learning models can be computed efficiently. In this paper, we establish the complexity of computing the SHAP explanation in three important settings. First, we consider fully-factorized data distributions, and show that the complexity of computing the SHAP explanation is the same as the complexity of computing the expected value of the model. This fully-factorized setting is often used to simplify the SHAP computation, yet our results show that the computation can be intractable for commonly used models such as logistic regression. Going beyond fully-factorized distributions, we show that computing SHAP explanations is already intractable for a very simple setting: computing SHAP explanations of trivial classifiers over naive Bayes distributions. Finally, we show that even computing SHAP over the empirical distribution is #P-hard. Guy Van den Broeck, Anton Lykov, Maximilian Schleich, Dan Suciu |
AAAI | 2 |