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

Emma Rollon

dblp:32/3788 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
17ranked-venue papers
10as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0001-8021-9464ORCID · reported

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 15 · 9 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 7 · 4 first-author · 1 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 6 · 5 first-authorTheory of computation · 3 · 1 first-author · 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.

Theoretical computer science
3 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 50% Computational complexity · 27% Mathematical optimization · 15%
Artificial intelligence
4 papers
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 77% Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 23%

Topics — the 14 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Automated reasoning and model checking › automated reasoning
MaxSAT resolution
1.222024
Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Cost-Function Merging for Implicit Hitting Set WCSP Solving · AAAI 2024
Augmenting the Power of (Partial) MaxSat Resolution with Extension · AAAI 2020
Computational complexity
constraint satisfaction
0.812024
Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Cost-Function Merging for Implicit Hitting Set WCSP Solving · AAAI 2024
Automated reasoning and model checking
implicit hitting set
0.812024
Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Cost-Function Merging for Implicit Hitting Set WCSP Solving · AAAI 2024
Computational complexity
proof complexity
0.812024
Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Cost-Function Merging for Implicit Hitting Set WCSP Solving · AAAI 2024
Mathematical optimization › combinatorial optimization
weighted constraint satisfaction
0.812024
Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Cost-Function Merging for Implicit Hitting Set WCSP Solving · AAAI 2024
Automated reasoning and model checking › satisfiability
maximum satisfiability
0.412020
Augmenting the Power of (Partial) MaxSat Resolution with Extension · AAAI 2020
Logic in computer science
proof theory
0.412020
Augmenting the Power of (Partial) MaxSat Resolution with Extension · AAAI 2020
Automated reasoning and model checking
satisfiability
0.412020
Augmenting the Power of (Partial) MaxSat Resolution with Extension · AAAI 2020
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models
graphical models
0.332016
Semiring-Based Mini-Bucket Partitioning Schemes · IJCAI 2013
New Mini-Bucket Partitioning Heuristics for Bounding the Probability of Evidence · AAAI 2010
Limited Discrepancy AND/OR Search and Its Application to Optimization Tasks in Graphical Models · IJCAI 2016
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
mini-bucket elimination
0.322013
Semiring-Based Mini-Bucket Partitioning Schemes · IJCAI 2013
New Mini-Bucket Partitioning Heuristics for Bounding the Probability of Evidence · AAAI 2010
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › tree search
AND/OR search
0.212016
Limited Discrepancy AND/OR Search and Its Application to Optimization Tasks in Graphical Models · IJCAI 2016
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
statistical inference
0.212013
Semiring-Based Mini-Bucket Partitioning Schemes · IJCAI 2013
Mathematical optimization
multi-objective optimization
0.112007
Multi-Objective Russian Doll Search · AAAI 2007
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
combinatorial search
0.012007
Multi-Objective Russian Doll Search · AAAI 2007

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

theoretical analysis · 0.8empirical benchmarking · 0.8cost-function merging · 0.8proof complexity analysis · 0.4extension rule · 0.4limited discrepancy search · 0.2variable partitioning · 0.2semiring-based inference · 0.2russian doll search · 0.1mini-bucket elimination · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Cost-Function Merging for Implicit Hitting Set WCSP Solving
abstract
The Implicit Hitting Set (HS) approach has shown very effective for MaxSAT solving. However, only preliminary promising results have been obtained for the very similar Weighted CSP framework. In this paper we contribute towards both a better theoretical understanding of the HS approach and a more effective HS-based solvers for WCSP. First, we bound the minimum number of iterations of HS thanks to what we call distinguished cores. Then, we show a source of inefficiency by introducing two simple problems where HS is unfeasible. Next, we propose two reformulation methods that merge cost-functions to overcome the problem. We provide a theoretical analysis that quantifies the magnitude of the improvement of each method with respect to the number of iterations of the algorithm. In particular, we show that the reformulations can bring an exponential number of iterations down to a constant number in our working examples. Finally, we complement our theoretical analysis with two sets of experiments. First, we show that our results are aligned with real executions. Second, and most importantly, we conduct experiments on typical benchmark problems and show that cost-function merging may be heuristically applied and it may accelerate HS algorithms by several orders of magnitude. In some cases, it even outperforms state-of-the-art solvers.
Javier Larrosa, Conrado Martínez, Emma Rollon
AAAI3
2022 Proof Complexity for the Maximum Satisfiability Problem and its Use in SAT Refutations
abstract
Abstract MaxSAT, the optimization version of the well-known SAT problem, has attracted a lot of research interest in the past decade. Motivated by the many important applications and inspired by the success of modern SAT solvers, researchers have developed many MaxSAT solvers. Since most research is algorithmic, its significance is mostly evaluated empirically. In this paper, we want to address MaxSAT from the more formal point of view of proof complexity. With that aim, we start providing basic definitions and proving some basic results. Then we analyse the effect of adding split and virtual, two original inference rules, to MaxSAT resolution. We show that each addition makes the resulting proof system stronger, even when virtual is restricted to empty clauses ($0$-virtual). We also analyse the power of our proof systems in the particular case of SAT refutations. We show that our strongest system, ResSV, is equivalent to circular and dual rail with split. We also analyse empirically some known gadget-based reformulations. Our results seem to indicate that the advantage of these three seemingly different systems over general resolution comes mainly from their ability of augmenting the original formula with hypothetical inconsistencies, as captured in a very simple way by the virtual rule.
Emma Rollon, Javier Larrosa
J. Log. Comput.1
2020 Augmenting the Power of (Partial) MaxSat Resolution with Extension
abstract
The refutation power of SAT and MaxSAT resolution is challenged by problems like the soft and hard Pigeon Hole Problem PHP for which short refutations do not exist. In this paper we augment the MaxSAT resolution proof system with an extension rule. The new proof system MaxResE is sound and complete, and more powerful than plain MaxSAT resolution, since it can refute the soft and hard PHP in polynomial time. We show that MaxResE refutations actually subtract lower bounds from the objective function encoded by the formulas. The resulting formula is the residual after the lower bound extraction. We experimentally show that the residual of the soft PHP (once its necessary cost of 1 has been efficiently subtracted with MaxResE) is a concise, easy to solve, satisfiable problem.
Javier Larrosa, Emma Rollon
AAAI2
2020 Towards a Better Understanding of (Partial Weighted) MaxSAT Proof Systems
Javier Larrosa, Emma Rollon
SAT2
2016 Limited Discrepancy AND/OR Search and Its Application to Optimization Tasks in Graphical Models
Javier Larrosa, Emma Rollon, Rina Dechter
IJCAI2
2014 Decomposing Utility Functions in Bounded Max-Sum for Distributed Constraint Optimization
Emma Rollon, Javier Larrosa
CP1
2013 Semiring-Based Mini-Bucket Partitioning Schemes
Emma Rollon, Javier Larrosa, Rina Dechter
IJCAI1
2012 Improved Bounded Max-Sum for Distributed Constraint Optimization
Emma Rollon, Javier Larrosa
CP1
2012 Local arc consistency for non-invertible semirings, with an application to multi-objective optimization
Stefano Bistarelli, Fabio Gadducci, Javier Larrosa, Emma Rollon, Francesco Santini 0001
Expert Syst. Appl.4
2011 On Mini-Buckets and the Min-fill Elimination Ordering
Emma Rollon, Javier Larrosa
CP1
2010 New Mini-Bucket Partitioning Heuristics for Bounding the Probability of Evidence
abstract
Mini-Bucket Elimination (MBE) is a well-known approximation algorithm deriving lower and upper bounds on quantities of interest over graphical models. It relies on a procedure that partitions a set of functions, called bucket, into smaller subsets, called mini-buckets. The method has been used with a single partitioning heuristic throughout, so the impact of the partitioning algorithm on the quality of the generated bound has never been investigated. This paper addresses this issue by presenting a framework within which partitioning strategies can be described, analyzed and compared. We derive a new class of partitioning heuristics from first-principles geared for likelihood queries, demonstrate their impact on a number of benchmarks for probabilistic reasoning and show that the results are competitive (often superior) to state-of-the-art bounding schemes.
Emma Rollon, Rina Dechter
AAAI1
2010 Active Tuples-based Scheme for Bounding Posterior Beliefs
abstract
The paper presents a scheme for computing lower and upper bounds on the posterior marginals in Bayesian networks with discrete variables. Its power lies in its ability to use any available scheme that bounds the probability of evidence or posterior marginals and enhance its performance in an anytime manner. The scheme uses the cutset conditioning principle to tighten existing bounding schemes and to facilitate anytime behavior, utilizing a fixed number of cutset tuples. The accuracy of the bounds improves as the number of used cutset tuples increases and so does the computation time. We demonstrate empirically the value of our scheme for bounding posterior marginals and probability of evidence using a variant of the bound propagation algorithm as a plug-in scheme.
Bozhena Bidyuk, Rina Dechter, Emma Rollon
J. Artif. Intell. Res.3
2008 A Soft Approach to Multi-objective Optimization
Stefano Bistarelli, Fabio Gadducci, Javier Larrosa, Emma Rollon
ICLP4
2007 Multi-Objective Russian Doll Search
Emma Rollon, Javier Larrosa
AAAI1
2006 Mini-bucket Elimination with Bucket Propagation
Emma Rollon, Javier Larrosa
CP1
2006 Multi-Objective Propagation in Constraint Programming
Emma Rollon, Javier Larrosa
ECAI1
2005 Depth-First Mini-Bucket Elimination
Emma Rollon, Javier Larrosa
CP1