Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Mohsen Nafar
dblp:359/6421
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 3 first-author · 3 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 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
1 paper |
Mathematical optimization · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Mathematical optimization
discrete optimization |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Using Clustering to Strengthen Decision Diagram Bounds for Discrete Optimization · AAAI 2024 |
Mathematical optimization
knapsack problem |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Using Clustering to Strengthen Decision Diagram Bounds for Discrete Optimization · AAAI 2024 |
Mathematical optimization › scheduling
scheduling problems |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Using Clustering to Strengthen Decision Diagram Bounds for Discrete Optimization · AAAI 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
dynamic programming · 0.8decision diagrams · 0.8clustering · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Using Clustering to Strengthen Decision Diagram Bounds for Discrete OptimizationabstractOffering a generic approach to obtaining both upper and lower bounds, decision diagrams (DDs) are becoming an increasingly important tool for solving discrete optimization problems. In particular, they provide a powerful and often complementary alternative to other well-known generic bounding mechanisms such as the LP relaxation. A standard approach to employ DDs for discrete optimization is to formulate the problem as a Dynamic Program and use that formulation to compile a DD top-down in a layer-by-layer fashion. To limit the size of the resulting DD and to obtain bounds, one typically imposes a maximum width for each layer which is then enforced by either merging nodes (resulting in a so-called relaxed DD that provides a dual bound) or by dropping nodes (resulting in a so-called restricted DD that provides a primal bound). The quality of the DD bounds obtained from this top-down compilation process heavily depends on the heuristics used for the selection of the nodes to merge or drop. While it is sometimes possible to engineer problem-specific heuristics for this selection problem, the most generic approach relies on sorting the layer’s nodes based on objective function information. In this paper, we propose a generic and problem-agnostic approach that relies on clustering nodes based on the state information associated with each node. In a set of computational experiments with different knapsack and scheduling problems, we show that our approach generally outperforms the classical generic approach, and often achieves drastically better bounds both with respect to the size of the DD and the time used for compiling the DD. Mohsen Nafar, Michael Römer |
AAAI | 1 |
| 2024 | Strengthening Relaxed Decision Diagrams for Maximum Independent Set Problem: Novel Variable Ordering and Merge Heuristics
Mohsen Nafar, Michael Römer |
CP | 1 |
| 2024 | Lookahead, Merge and Reduce for Compiling Relaxed Decision Diagrams for Optimization
Mohsen Nafar, Michael Römer |
CPAIOR (2) | 1 |