EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sam van der Poel
dblp:344/8819
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computational complexity
average-case complexity |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Spectral Recovery of a Planted Triangle-Dense Subgraph · COLT 2026 |
Graph algorithms and graph theory › dense subgraph discovery
planted subgraph recovery |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Spectral Recovery of a Planted Triangle-Dense Subgraph · COLT 2026 |
Computational complexity
statistical-computational gaps |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Spectral Recovery of a Planted Triangle-Dense Subgraph · COLT 2026 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › sequence modeling
sequence classification |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular Languages · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024 |
Automata and formal languages
regular languages |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular Languages · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024 |
Automata and formal languages › grammatical inference
regular language learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Spectral Recovery of a Planted Triangle-Dense SubgraphabstractGiven 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 |
COLT | 1 |
| 2024 | MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular LanguagesabstractSynthetic 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 |