Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Fedor Velikonivtsev
dblp:388/1360
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 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.
| Artificial intelligence
2 papers |
Efficient and distributed learning · 72% Graph learning · 21% Language models and text generation · 7% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Graph algorithms and graph theory · 100% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
inference acceleration |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | AutoJudge: Judge Decoding Without Manual Annotation · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
model compression |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | AutoJudge: Judge Decoding Without Manual Annotation · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › inference acceleration
speculative decoding |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | AutoJudge: Judge Decoding Without Manual Annotation · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph generation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Challenges of Generating Structurally Diverse Graphs · NeurIPS 2024 |
Graph algorithms and graph theory
graph generation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Challenges of Generating Structurally Diverse Graphs · NeurIPS 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
mathematical reasoning |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | AutoJudge: Judge Decoding Without Manual Annotation · NeurIPS 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
random graph model · 1.5local graph optimization · 1.5genetic algorithm · 1.5semi-greedy search · 0.9lightweight classifier · 0.9LLM embeddings · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | AutoJudge: Judge Decoding Without Manual AnnotationabstractWe introduce AutoJudge, a method that accelerates large language model (LLM) inference with task-specific lossy speculative decoding.
Instead of matching the original model output distribution token-by-token, we identify the generated tokens that affect the downstream quality of the response, relaxing the distribution match guarantee so that the "unimportant" tokens can be generated faster.
Our approach relies on a semi‑greedy search algorithm to test which of the mismatches between target and draft models should be corrected to preserve quality and which ones may be skipped.
We then train a lightweight classifier based on existing LLM embeddings to predict, at inference time, which mismatching tokens can be safely accepted without compromising the final answer quality.
We evaluate AutoJudge with multiple draft/target model pairs on mathematical reasoning and programming benchmarks, achieving significant speedups at the cost of a minor accuracy reduction.
Notably, on GSM8K with the Llama 3.1 70B target model, our approach achieves up to ${\approx}2{\times}$ speedup \textit{over speculative decoding} at the cost of a ${\le} 1\%$ drop in accuracy.
When applied to the LiveCodeBench benchmark, AutoJudge automatically detects programming-specific important tokens, accepting ${\ge}25$ tokens per speculation cycle at a$~ 2\%$ drop in Pass@1. Our approach requires no human annotation and is easy to integrate with modern LLM inference frameworks. Roman Garipov, Fedor Velikonivtsev, Ivan Ermakov, Ruslan Svirschevski, Vage Egiazarian, Max Ryabinin |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2024 | Challenges of Generating Structurally Diverse GraphsabstractFor many graph-related problems, it can be essential to have a set of structurally diverse graphs. For instance, such graphs can be used for testing graph algorithms or their neural approximations. However, to the best of our knowledge, the problem of generating structurally diverse graphs has not been explored in the literature. In this paper, we fill this gap. First, we discuss how to define diversity for a set of graphs, why this task is non-trivial, and how one can choose a proper diversity measure. Then, for a given diversity measure, we propose and compare several algorithms optimizing it: we consider approaches based on standard random graph models, local graph optimization, genetic algorithms, and neural generative models. We show that it is possible to significantly improve diversity over basic random graph generators. Additionally, our analysis of generated graphs allows us to better understand the properties of graph distances: depending on which diversity measure is used for optimization, the obtained graphs may possess very different structural properties which gives a better understanding of the graph distance underlying the diversity measure. Fedor Velikonivtsev, Mikhail Mironov, Liudmila Ostroumova |
NeurIPS | 1 |