EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Teppo Niinimaki
dblp:76/10620 · also Teppo Mikael Niinimäki
· DBLP profile ↗
12ranked-venue papers
6as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 11 · 5 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 5 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 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.
| Theoretical computer science
5 papers |
Computational complexity · 41% Combinatorics and discrete mathematics · 34% Algorithms and data structures · 25% | |
| Artificial intelligence
3 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 100% | |
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Privacy and data protection · 100% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% |
Topics — the 15 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computational complexity › counting problems
linear extension counting |
0.9 | 3 | 2018 | A Scalable Scheme for Counting Linear Extensions · IJCAI 2018 Counting Linear Extensions in Practice: MCMC Versus Exponential Monte Carlo · AAAI 2018 Counting Linear Extensions of Sparse Posets · IJCAI 2016 |
Combinatorics and discrete mathematics
partial orders |
0.9 | 3 | 2018 | A Scalable Scheme for Counting Linear Extensions · IJCAI 2018 The Mixing of Markov Chains on Linear Extensions in Practice · IJCAI 2017 Counting Linear Extensions of Sparse Posets · IJCAI 2016 |
Computational complexity › counting problems
approximate counting |
0.7 | 2 | 2018 | A Scalable Scheme for Counting Linear Extensions · IJCAI 2018 Counting Linear Extensions in Practice: MCMC Versus Exponential Monte Carlo · AAAI 2018 |
Combinatorics and discrete mathematics › partial orders
linear extensions |
0.6 | 2 | 2018 | A Scalable Scheme for Counting Linear Extensions · IJCAI 2018 The Mixing of Markov Chains on Linear Extensions in Practice · IJCAI 2017 |
Algorithms and data structures › randomized algorithms › sampling
markov chain monte carlo |
0.6 | 2 | 2018 | Counting Linear Extensions in Practice: MCMC Versus Exponential Monte Carlo · AAAI 2018 The Mixing of Markov Chains on Linear Extensions in Practice · IJCAI 2017 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models › graphical models
bayesian network |
0.4 | 2 | 2016 | Structure Discovery in Bayesian Networks by Sampling Partial Orders · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016 Annealed Importance Sampling for Structure Learning in Bayesian Networks · IJCAI 2013 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models › graphical models
structure learning |
0.4 | 2 | 2016 | Structure Discovery in Bayesian Networks by Sampling Partial Orders · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016 Annealed Importance Sampling for Structure Learning in Bayesian Networks · IJCAI 2013 |
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy
differentially private learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Representation transfer for differentially private drug sensitivity prediction · Bioinform. 2019 |
Algorithms and data structures › randomized algorithms
sampling |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | The Mixing of Markov Chains on Linear Extensions in Practice · IJCAI 2017 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods
markov chain monte carlo |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Structure Discovery in Bayesian Networks by Sampling Partial Orders · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2016 |
Computational complexity › counting problems
counting algorithms |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Counting Linear Extensions of Sparse Posets · IJCAI 2016 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models › graphical models › markov random field
markov network structure learning |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Learning Chordal Markov Networks by Dynamic Programming · NIPS 2014 |
Algorithms and data structures
dynamic programming |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Learning Chordal Markov Networks by Dynamic Programming · NIPS 2014 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › drug discovery › drug response prediction
cancer drug response prediction |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Representation transfer for differentially private drug sensitivity prediction · Bioinform. 2019 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › drug discovery › drug response prediction
drug sensitivity prediction |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Representation transfer for differentially private drug sensitivity prediction · Bioinform. 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
dynamic programming · 0.9variational autoencoder · 0.8random projection · 0.8principal component analysis · 0.8annealed importance sampling · 0.4relaxation tootsie pop · 0.3model counting · 0.3markov chain monte carlo · 0.3exponential-time counting · 0.3adaptive relaxation monte carlo · 0.3perfect simulation · 0.3markov chain mixing · 0.3sparse poset algorithms · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | Representation transfer for differentially private drug sensitivity predictionabstractMOTIVATION: Human genomic datasets often contain sensitive information that limits use and sharing of the data. In particular, simple anonymization strategies fail to provide sufficient level of protection for genomic data, because the data are inherently identifiable. Differentially private machine learning can help by guaranteeing that the published results do not leak too much information about any individual data point. Recent research has reached promising results on differentially private drug sensitivity prediction using gene expression data. Differentially private learning with genomic data is challenging because it is more difficult to guarantee privacy in high dimensions. Dimensionality reduction can help, but if the dimension reduction mapping is learned from the data, then it needs to be differentially private too, which can carry a significant privacy cost. Furthermore, the selection of any hyperparameters (such as the target dimensionality) needs to also avoid leaking private information. RESULTS: We study an approach that uses a large public dataset of similar type to learn a compact representation for differentially private learning. We compare three representation learning methods: variational autoencoders, principal component analysis and random projection. We solve two machine learning tasks on gene expression of cancer cell lines: cancer type classification, and drug sensitivity prediction. The experiments demonstrate significant benefit from all representation learning methods with variational autoencoders providing the most accurate predictions most often. Our results significantly improve over previous state-of-the-art in accuracy of differentially private drug sensitivity prediction. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Code used in the experiments is available at https://github.com/DPBayes/dp-representation-transfer. Teppo Niinimaki, Mikko A. Heikkilä, Antti Honkela, Samuel Kaski |
Bioinform. | 1 |
| 2018 | Counting Linear Extensions in Practice: MCMC Versus Exponential Monte CarloabstractCounting the linear extensions of a given partial order is a #P-complete problem that arises in numerous applications. For polynomial-time approximation, several Markov chain Monte Carlo schemes have been proposed; however, little is known of their efficiency in practice. This work presents an empirical evaluation of the state-of-the-art schemes and investigates a number of ideas to enhance their performance. In addition, we introduce a novel approximation scheme, adaptive relaxation Monte Carlo (ARMC), that leverages exact exponential-time counting algorithms. We show that approximate counting is feasible up to a few hundred elements on various classes of partial orders, and within this range ARMC typically outperforms the other schemes. Topi Talvitie, Kustaa Kangas, Teppo Niinimaki, Mikko Koivisto |
AAAI | 3 |
| 2018 | A Scalable Scheme for Counting Linear ExtensionsabstractCounting the linear extensions of a given partial order not only has several applications in artificial intelligence but also represents a hard problem that challenges modern paradigms for approximate counting. Recently, Talvitie et al. (AAAI 2018) showed that an exponential time scheme beats the fastest known polynomial time schemes in practice, even if allowing hours of running time. Here, we present a novel scheme, relaxation Tootsie Pop, which in our experiments exhibits polynomial characteristics and significantly outperforms previous schemes. We also instantiate state-of-the-art model counters for CNF formulas; two natural encodings yield schemes that, however, are inferior to the more specialized schemes. Topi Talvitie, Kustaa Kangas, Teppo Niinimaki, Mikko Koivisto |
IJCAI | 3 |
| 2017 | The Mixing of Markov Chains on Linear Extensions in PracticeabstractWe investigate almost uniform sampling from the set of linear extensions of a given partial order. The most efficient schemes stem from Markov chains whose mixing time bounds are polynomial, yet impractically large. We show that, on instances one encounters in practice, the actual mixing times can be much smaller than the worst-case bounds, and particularly so for a novel Markov chain we put forward. We circumvent the inherent hardness of estimating standard mixing times by introducing a refined notion, which admits estimation for moderate-size partial orders. Our empirical results suggest that the Markov chain approach to sample linear extensions can be made to scale well in practice, provided that the actual mixing times can be realized by instance-sensitive upper bounds or termination rules. Examples of the latter include existing perfect simulation algorithms, whose running times in our experiments follow the actual mixing times of certain chains, albeit with significant overhead. Topi Talvitie, Teppo Niinimaki, Mikko Koivisto |
IJCAI | 2 |
| 2016 | Counting Linear Extensions of Sparse Posets
Kustaa Kangas, Teemu Hankala, Teppo Niinimaki, Mikko Koivisto |
IJCAI | 3 |
| 2016 | Structure Discovery in Bayesian Networks by Sampling Partial OrdersabstractWe present methods based on Metropolis-coupled Markov chain Monte Carlo (MC3) and annealed importance sampling (AIS) for estimating the posterior distribution of Bayesian networks. The methods draw samples from an appropriate distribution of partial orders on the nodes, continued by sampling directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) conditionally on the sampled partial orders. We show that the computations needed for the sampling algorithms are feasible as long as the encountered partial orders have relatively few down-sets. While the algorithms assume suitable modularity properties of the priors, arbitrary priors can be handled by dividing the importance weight of each sampled DAG by the number of topological sorts it has---we give a practical dynamic programming algorithm to compute these numbers. Our empirical results demonstrate that the presented partial-order- based samplers are superior to previous Markov chain Monte Carlo methods, which sample DAGs either directly or via linear orders on the nodes. The results also suggest that the convergence rate of the estimators based on AIS are competitive to those of MC3. Thus AIS is the preferred method, as it enables easier large- scale parallelization and, in addition, supplies good probabilistic lower bound guarantees for the marginal likelihood of the model. Teppo Niinimaki, Pekka Parviainen, Mikko Koivisto |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 1 |
| 2015 | Averaging of Decomposable Graphs by Dynamic Programming and Sampling
Kustaa Kangas, Teppo Niinimaki, Mikko Koivisto |
UAI | 2 |
| 2014 | Learning Chordal Markov Networks by Dynamic Programming
Kustaa Kangas, Mikko Koivisto, Teppo Niinimaki |
NIPS | 3 |
| 2013 | Annealed Importance Sampling for Structure Learning in Bayesian Networks
Teppo Niinimaki, Mikko Koivisto |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2013 | Treedy: A Heuristic for Counting and Sampling Subsets
Teppo Niinimaki, Mikko Koivisto |
UAI | 1 |
| 2012 | Local Structure Discovery in Bayesian Networks
Teppo Niinimaki, Pekka Parviainen |
UAI | 1 |
| 2011 | Partial Order MCMC for Structure Discovery in Bayesian Networks
Teppo Niinimaki, Pekka Parviainen, Mikko Koivisto |
UAI | 1 |