Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Arkadas Ozakin
dblp:96/9667
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
0000-0002-2318-9227ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1
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 · 55% Learning theory · 45% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Learning theory › ranking
learning to rank |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Learning Protein Folding Energy Functions · ICDM 2011 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology
protein structure prediction |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Learning Protein Folding Energy Functions · ICDM 2011 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
density estimation |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Submanifold density estimation · NIPS 2009 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › density estimation
kernel density estimation |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Submanifold density estimation · NIPS 2009 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
support vector machine · 0.2non-negative constraints · 0.2MINUIT optimization · 0.2riemannian geometry · 0.1kernel density estimation · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Learning Protein Folding Energy Functionsabstractprotein folding is protein energy function design, which pertains to defining the energy of protein conformations in a way that makes folding most efficient and reliable. In this paper, we address this issue as a weight optimization problem and utilize a machine learning approach, learning-to-rank, to solve this problem. We investigate the ranking-via-classification approach, especially the RankingSVM method and compare it with the state-of-the-art approach to the problem using the MINUIT optimization package. To maintain the physicality of the results, we impose non-negativity constraints on the weights. For this we develop two efficient non-negative support vector machine (NNSVM) methods, derived from L2-norm SVM and L1-norm SVMs, respectively. We demonstrate an energy function which maintains the correct ordering with respect to structure dissimilarity to the native state more often, is more efficient and reliable for learning on large protein sets, and is qualitatively superior to the current state-of-the-art energy function. Wei Guan 0002, Arkadas Ozakin, Alexander G. Gray, Jose Borreguero, Shashi Bhushan Pandit, Anna Jagielska, Liliana Wroblewska, Jeffrey Skolnick |
ICDM | 2 |
| 2009 | Submanifold density estimationabstractKernel density estimation is the most widely-used practical method for accurate nonparametric density estimation. However, long-standing worst-case theoretical results showing that its performance worsens exponentially with the dimension of the data have quashed its application to modern high-dimensional datasets for decades. In practice, it has been recognized that often such data have a much lower-dimensional intrinsic structure. We propose a small modification to kernel density estimation for estimating probability density functions on Riemannian submanifolds of Euclidean space. Using ideas from Riemannian geometry, we prove the consistency of this modified estimator and show that the convergence rate is determined by the intrinsic dimension of the submanifold. We conclude with empirical results demonstrating the behavior predicted by our theory. Arkadas Ozakin, Alexander G. Gray |
NIPS | 1 |