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

Andre Stechert

dblp:49/2837 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1999
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2

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
1 paper
Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
heuristic search
0.011997
On Efficient Heuristic Ranking of Hypotheses · NIPS 1997
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
hypothesis ranking
0.011997
On Efficient Heuristic Ranking of Hypotheses · NIPS 1997

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

heuristic ranking · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1999 Efficient Heuristic Hypothesis Ranking
abstract
This paper considers the problem of learning the ranking of a set of stochastic alternatives based upon incomplete information (i.e., a limited number of samples). We describe a system that, at each decision cycle, outputs either a complete ordering on the hypotheses or decides to gather additional information (i.e., observations) at some cost. The ranking problem is a generalization of the previously studied hypothesis selection problem - in selection, an algorithm must select the single best hypothesis, while in ranking, an algorithm must order all the hypotheses. The central problem we address is achieving the desired ranking quality while minimizing the cost of acquiring additional samples. We describe two algorithms for hypothesis ranking and their application for the probably approximately correct (PAC) and expected loss (EL) learning criteria. Empirical results are provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of these ranking procedures on both synthetic and real-world datasets.
Steve A. Chien, Andre Stechert, Darren Mutz
J. Artif. Intell. Res.2
1997 On Efficient Heuristic Ranking of Hypotheses
Steve A. Chien, Andre Stechert, Darren Mutz
NIPS2