EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Angelo C. Restificar
dblp:97/1418
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 2 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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
3 papers |
Multi-agent systems · 45% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 35% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 20% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › probabilistic reasoning › probabilistic logic
first-order probabilistic models |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Learning first-order probabilistic models with combining rules · ICML 2005 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
parameter estimation |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Learning first-order probabilistic models with combining rules · ICML 2005 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems
automated negotiation |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Constructing utility models from observed negotiation actions · IJCAI 2003 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems › social choice › computational social choice
preference elicitation |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Preference Elicitation via Theory Refinement · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2003 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › knowledge acquisition
theory refinement |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Preference Elicitation via Theory Refinement · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2003 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems › multi-agent learning
utility learning |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Constructing utility models from observed negotiation actions · IJCAI 2003 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
gradient descent · 0.1expectation-maximization · 0.1theory refinement · 0.0preference elicitation · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Detecting experimental techniques and selecting relevant documents for protein-protein interactions from biomedical literatureabstractBACKGROUND: The selection of relevant articles for curation, and linking those articles to experimental techniques confirming the findings became one of the primary subjects of the recent BioCreative III contest. The contest's Protein-Protein Interaction (PPI) task consisted of two sub-tasks: Article Classification Task (ACT) and Interaction Method Task (IMT). ACT aimed to automatically select relevant documents for PPI curation, whereas the goal of IMT was to recognise the methods used in experiments for identifying the interactions in full-text articles. RESULTS: We proposed and compared several classification-based methods for both tasks, employing rich contextual features as well as features extracted from external knowledge sources. For IMT, a new method that classifies pair-wise relations between every text phrase and candidate interaction method obtained promising results with an F1 score of 64.49%, as tested on the task's development dataset. We also explored ways to combine this new approach and more conventional, multi-label document classification methods. For ACT, our classifiers exploited automatically detected named entities and other linguistic information. The evaluation results on the BioCreative III PPI test datasets showed that our systems were very competitive: one of our IMT methods yielded the best performance among all participants, as measured by F1 score, Matthew's Correlation Coefficient and AUC iP/R; whereas for ACT, our best classifier was ranked second as measured by AUC iP/R, and also competitive according to other metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel approach that converts the multi-class, multi-label classification problem to a binary classification problem showed much promise in IMT. Nevertheless, on the test dataset the best performance was achieved by taking the union of the output of this method and that of a multi-class, multi-label document classifier, which indicates that the two types of systems complement each other in terms of recall. For ACT, our system exploited a rich set of features and also obtained encouraging results. We examined the features with respect to their contributions to the classification results, and concluded that contextual words surrounding named entities, as well as the MeSH headings associated with the documents were among the main contributors to the performance. Xinglong Wang, Rafal Rak, Angelo C. Restificar, Chikashi Nobata, C. J. Rupp, Riza Theresa Batista-Navarro, Raheel Nawaz, Sophia Ananiadou |
BMC Bioinform. | 3 |
| 2005 | Learning first-order probabilistic models with combining rulesabstractFirst-order probabilistic models allow us to model situations in which a random variable in the first-order model may have a large and varying numbers of parent variables in the ground ("unrolled") model. One approach to compactly describing such models is to independently specify the probability of a random variable conditioned on each individual parent (or small sets of parents) and then combine these conditional distributions via a combining rule (e.g., Noisy-OR). This paper presents algorithms for learning with combining rules. Specifically, algorithms based on gradient descent and expectation maximization are derived, implemented, and evaluated on synthetic data and on a real-world task. The results demonstrate that the algorithms are able to learn the parameters of both the individual parent-target distributions and the combining rules. Sriraam Natarajan, Prasad Tadepalli, Eric Altendorf, Thomas G. Dietterich, Alan Fern, Angelo C. Restificar |
ICML | 6 |
| 2005 | Learning from Sparse Data by Exploiting Monotonicity Constraints
Eric Altendorf, Angelo C. Restificar, Thomas G. Dietterich |
UAI | 2 |
| 2003 | Constructing utility models from observed negotiation actions
Angelo C. Restificar, Peter Haddawy |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2003 | Preference Elicitation via Theory Refinement
Peter Haddawy, Vu A. Ha, Angelo C. Restificar, Benjamin Geisler, John Miyamoto |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 3 |
| 1996 | An Update Procedure for A Probabilistic Deductive Database
Angelo C. Restificar |
PRICAI | 1 |