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

Ajit Paul Singh

dblp:45/6090 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 3 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2 · 2 first-author

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
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 42% Robot navigation and mapping · 42% Trustworthy machine learning · 17%
Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Mathematical optimization · 100%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Recommender systems · 56% Data mining · 44%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes
gaussian process
0.122008
Near-Optimal Sensor Placements in Gaussian Processes: Theory, Efficient Algorithms and Empirical Studies · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2008
Near-optimal sensor placements in Gaussian processes · ICML 2005
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping › sensor planning
sensor placement
0.122008
Near-Optimal Sensor Placements in Gaussian Processes: Theory, Efficient Algorithms and Empirical Studies · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2008
Near-optimal sensor placements in Gaussian processes · ICML 2005
Mathematical optimization
submodular optimization
0.122008
Near-Optimal Sensor Placements in Gaussian Processes: Theory, Efficient Algorithms and Empirical Studies · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2008
Near-optimal sensor placements in Gaussian processes · ICML 2005
Recommender systems › collaborative filtering › matrix factorization
collective matrix factorization
0.112008
Relational learning via collective matrix factorization · KDD 2008
Data mining
relational learning
0.112008
Relational learning via collective matrix factorization · KDD 2008
Mathematical optimization
combinatorial optimization
0.112008
Near-Optimal Sensor Placements in Gaussian Processes: Theory, Efficient Algorithms and Empirical Studies · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2008
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
mutual information criterion
0.112005
Near-optimal sensor placements in Gaussian processes · ICML 2005
Recommender systems › collaborative filtering
matrix factorization
0.012008
Relational learning via collective matrix factorization · KDD 2008

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

submodular optimization · 0.2gaussian process · 0.2submodularity · 0.2polynomial-time approximation · 0.2stochastic optimization · 0.1newton update · 0.1matrix factorization · 0.1bregman divergence · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 A Bayesian Matrix Factorization Model for Relational Data
Ajit Paul Singh, Geoffrey J. Gordon
UAI1
2008 Relational learning via collective matrix factorization
abstract
Relational learning is concerned with predicting unknown values of a relation, given a database of entities and observed relations among entities. An example of relational learning is movie rating prediction, where entities could include users, movies, genres, and actors. Relations encode users' ratings of movies, movies' genres, and actors' roles in movies. A common prediction technique given one pairwise relation, for example a #users x #movies ratings matrix, is low-rank matrix factorization. In domains with multiple relations, represented as multiple matrices, we may improve predictive accuracy by exploiting information from one relation while predicting another. To this end, we propose a collective matrix factorization model: we simultaneously factor several matrices, sharing parameters among factors when an entity participates in multiple relations. Each relation can have a different value type and error distribution; so, we allow nonlinear relationships between the parameters and outputs, using Bregman divergences to measure error. We extend standard alternating projection algorithms to our model, and derive an efficient Newton update for the projection. Furthermore, we propose stochastic optimization methods to deal with large, sparse matrices. Our model generalizes several existing matrix factorization methods, and therefore yields new large-scale optimization algorithms for these problems. Our model can handle any pairwise relational schema and a wide variety of error models. We demonstrate its efficiency, as well as the benefit of sharing parameters among relations.
Ajit Paul Singh, Geoffrey J. Gordon
KDD1
2008 A Unified View of Matrix Factorization Models
Ajit Paul Singh, Geoffrey J. Gordon
ECML/PKDD (2)1
2008 Near-Optimal Sensor Placements in Gaussian Processes: Theory, Efficient Algorithms and Empirical Studies
Andreas Krause 0001, Ajit Paul Singh, Carlos Guestrin
J. Mach. Learn. Res.2
2005 Near-optimal sensor placements in Gaussian processes
abstract
When monitoring spatial phenomena, which are often modeled as Gaussian Processes (GPs), choosing sensor locations is a fundamental task. A common strategy is to place sensors at the points of highest entropy (variance) in the GP model. We propose a mutual information criteria, and show that it produces better placements. Furthermore, we prove that finding the configuration that maximizes mutual information is NP-complete. To address this issue, we describe a polynomial-time approximation that is within (1 -- 1/e) of the optimum by exploiting the submodularity of our criterion. This algorithm is extended to handle local structure in the GP, yielding significant speedups. We demonstrate the advantages of our approach on two real-world data sets.
Carlos Guestrin, Andreas Krause 0001, Ajit Paul Singh
ICML3