Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Matteo Tadiello
dblp:275/1836
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0002-2201-5129ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging 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.
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Generative modeling · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Generative modeling
flow matching |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Energy-Based Flow Matching for Generating 3D Molecular Structure · ICML 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › molecular informatics › cheminformatics › molecule generation
molecular structure generation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Energy-Based Flow Matching for Generating 3D Molecular Structure · ICML 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › protein structure prediction
protein-protein docking |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Energy-Based Flow Matching for Generating 3D Molecular Structure · ICML 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology
protein structure prediction |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Energy-Based Flow Matching for Generating 3D Molecular Structure · ICML 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
structure refinement · 1.7energy-based modeling · 1.7deep network · 1.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Energy-Based Flow Matching for Generating 3D Molecular StructureabstractMolecular structure generation is a fundamental problem that involves determining the 3D positions of molecules’ constituents. It has crucial biological applications, such as molecular docking, protein folding, and molecular design. Recent advances in generative modeling, such as diffusion models and flow matching, have made great progress on these tasks by modeling molecular conformations as a distribution. In this work, we focus on flow matching and adopt an energy-based perspective to improve training and inference of structure generation models. Our view results in a mapping function, represented by a deep network, that is directly learned to iteratively map random configurations, i.e. samples from the source distribution, to target structures, i.e. points in the data manifold. This yields a conceptually simple and empirically effective flow matching setup that is theoretically justified and has interesting connections to fundamental properties such as idempotency and stability, as well as the empirically useful techniques such as structure refinement in AlphaFold. Experiments on protein docking as well as protein backbone generation consistently demonstrate the method’s effectiveness, where it outperforms recent baselines of task-associated flow matching and diffusion models, using a similar computational budget. Wenyin Zhou, Christopher Iliffe Sprague, Vsevolod Viliuga, Matteo Tadiello, Arne Elofsson, Hossein Azizpour |
ICML | 4 |
| 2020 | Comparison of Collision Avoidance Algorithms for Autonomous Multi-agent SystemsabstractAutonomous multi-agent systems are raising in popularity in recent years. More specifically, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are involved in modern solutions for surveillance, delivering and film shooting. To carry out these tasks, the avoidance of any possible collision is a crucial matter, mostly when agents need to cooperate. In this paper, different collision avoidance algorithms are compared and analyzed for distributed multi-agent holonomic systems. Our purpose is to identify and clarify the different classes of reciprocal collision avoidance algorithms and then to compare them using meaningful metrics and test for the evaluation. Marco Moletta, Matteo Tadiello |
COMPSAC | 2 |