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.

Sam van der Poel

dblp:344/8819 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 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.

Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Computational complexity · 44% Automata and formal languages · 34% Graph algorithms and graph theory · 22%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Deep learning architectures and training · 77% Learning theory · 23%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational complexity
average-case complexity
1.012026
Spectral Recovery of a Planted Triangle-Dense Subgraph · COLT 2026
Graph algorithms and graph theory › dense subgraph discovery
planted subgraph recovery
1.012026
Spectral Recovery of a Planted Triangle-Dense Subgraph · COLT 2026
Computational complexity
statistical-computational gaps
1.012026
Spectral Recovery of a Planted Triangle-Dense Subgraph · COLT 2026
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › sequence modeling
sequence classification
0.812024
MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular Languages · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024
Automata and formal languages
regular languages
0.812024
MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular Languages · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024
Automata and formal languages › grammatical inference
regular language learning
0.812024
MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular Languages · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024

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

transformer · 1.5RNN · 1.5LSTM · 1.5GRU · 1.5spectral algorithm · 1.0semidefinite programming · 1.0low-degree polynomial lower bound · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Spectral Recovery of a Planted Triangle-Dense Subgraph
abstract
Given a simple graph on $n$ vertices and a parameter $k$, the triangle-densest-$k$-subgraph problem is known to be computationally hard in the worst case. To circumvent the computational hardness, we study an average-case model where a triangle-dense subgraph on $k$ vertices is planted in an Erdős–Rényi random graph on $n$ vertices. For the recovery of the planted subgraph, we propose a simple spectral algorithm and a semidefinite program, both of which use a graph matrix whose entries are local signed triangle counts. Theoretical guarantees for these algorithms are established through spectral analysis of the graph matrix. Finally, we provide evidence showing a statistical-to-computational gap analogous to that for the planted clique problem. The computational threshold in terms of the subgraph size $k$ is at least $\sqrt{n}$ in the framework of low-degree polynomial algorithms, while the information-theoretic threshold is at most logarithmic in $n$.
Sam van der Poel, Cheng Mao, Benjamin McKenna
COLT1
2024 MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular Languages
abstract
Synthetic datasets constructed from formal languages allow fine-grained examination of the learning and generalization capabilities of machine learning systems for sequence classification. This article presents a new benchmark for machine learning systems on sequence classification called MLRegTest, which contains training, development, and test sets from 1,800 regular languages. Different kinds of formal languages represent different kinds of long-distance dependencies, and correctly identifying long-distance dependencies in sequences is a known challenge for ML systems to generalize successfully. MLRegTest organizes its languages according to their logical complexity (monadic second order, first order, propositional, or restricted propositional) and the kind of logical literals (string, tier-string, subsequence, or combinations thereof). The logical complexity and choice of literal provides a systematic way to understand different kinds of long-distance dependencies in regular languages, and therefore to understand the capacities of different ML systems to learn such long-distance dependencies. Finally, the performance of different neural networks (simple RNN, LSTM, GRU, transformer) on MLRegTest is examined. The main conclusion is that performance depends significantly on the kind of test set, the class of language, and the neural network architecture.
Sam van der Poel, Dakotah Lambert, Kalina Kostyszyn, Tiantian Gao, Rahul Verma, Derek Andersen, Joanne Chau, Emily Peterson, Cody St. Clair, Paul Fodor, Chihiro Shibata, Jeffrey Heinz
J. Mach. Learn. Res.1