Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Dimitrios Myrisiotis
dblp:176/6922
· DBLP profile ↗
10ranked-venue papers
0as first author
8since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0001-9585-1227ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Theory of computation · 6 · 4 since 2021Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 4 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021
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
6 papers |
Computational complexity · 51% Approximation and online algorithms · 26% Algorithms and data structures · 11% | |
| Artificial intelligence
3 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 81% Learning theory · 19% |
Topics — the 25 heaviest of 25, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models
graphical models |
1.8 | 3 | 2025 | Learnability of Parameter-Bounded Bayes Nets · AAAI 2025 Total Variation Distance Meets Probabilistic Inference · ICML 2024 On Approximating Total Variation Distance · IJCAI 2023 |
Approximation and online algorithms
approximation schemes |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | Total Variation Distance Meets Probabilistic Inference · ICML 2024 On Approximating Total Variation Distance · IJCAI 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models › graphical models › structure learning › graphical model learning
bayesian network learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Learnability of Parameter-Bounded Bayes Nets · AAAI 2025 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
sample complexity |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Learnability of Parameter-Bounded Bayes Nets · AAAI 2025 |
Computational complexity
average-case complexity |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Computational Explorations of Total Variation Distance · ICLR 2025 |
Logic in computer science
higher-order logic |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Learnability of Parameter-Bounded Bayes Nets · AAAI 2025 |
Algorithms and data structures
polynomial-time algorithms |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Computational Explorations of Total Variation Distance · ICLR 2025 |
Computational complexity
circuit complexity |
0.8 | 2 | 2020 | Algorithms and Lower Bounds for De Morgan Formulas of Low-Communication Leaf Gates · CCC 2020 Circuit Lower Bounds for MCSP from Local Pseudorandom Generators · ICALP 2019 |
Computational complexity › pseudorandomness
pseudorandom generators |
0.8 | 2 | 2020 | Algorithms and Lower Bounds for De Morgan Formulas of Low-Communication Leaf Gates · CCC 2020 Circuit Lower Bounds for MCSP from Local Pseudorandom Generators · ICALP 2019 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference
bayesian network inference |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Total Variation Distance Meets Probabilistic Inference · ICML 2024 |
Approximation and online algorithms
approximation algorithms |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Total Variation Distance Meets Probabilistic Inference · ICML 2024 |
Approximation and online algorithms › approximation schemes › randomized approximation schemes
FPRAS |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Total Variation Distance Meets Probabilistic Inference · ICML 2024 |
Computational complexity
counting complexity |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | On Approximating Total Variation Distance · IJCAI 2023 |
Computational complexity › counting complexity
#SAT |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Algorithms and Lower Bounds for De Morgan Formulas of Low-Communication Leaf Gates · CCC 2020 |
Computational complexity › circuit complexity › formula size
de morgan formulas |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Algorithms and Lower Bounds for De Morgan Formulas of Low-Communication Leaf Gates · CCC 2020 |
Computational complexity › circuit complexity › formula size
formula size lower bound |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Algorithms and Lower Bounds for De Morgan Formulas of Low-Communication Leaf Gates · CCC 2020 |
Computational complexity
lower bounds |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Algorithms and Lower Bounds for De Morgan Formulas of Low-Communication Leaf Gates · CCC 2020 |
Algorithms and data structures › exact algorithms
SAT algorithms |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Algorithms and Lower Bounds for De Morgan Formulas of Low-Communication Leaf Gates · CCC 2020 |
Computational complexity › circuit complexity
circuit lower bounds |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Circuit Lower Bounds for MCSP from Local Pseudorandom Generators · ICALP 2019 |
Computational complexity
pseudorandomness |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Circuit Lower Bounds for MCSP from Local Pseudorandom Generators · ICALP 2019 |
Combinatorics and discrete mathematics › statistical physics models
ising model |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Computational Explorations of Total Variation Distance · ICLR 2025 |
Information theory › information measures › divergence measures › f-divergence
total variation distance |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Total Variation Distance Meets Probabilistic Inference · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models › graphical models
bayesian network |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | On Approximating Total Variation Distance · IJCAI 2023 |
Computational complexity › circuit complexity › circuit minimization
minimum circuit size problem |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Algorithms and Lower Bounds for De Morgan Formulas of Low-Communication Leaf Gates · CCC 2020 |
Computational complexity › learning theory
PAC learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Algorithms and Lower Bounds for De Morgan Formulas of Low-Communication Leaf Gates · CCC 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
reduction · 2.8total variation distance analysis · 1.7promise search reduction · 1.7treewidth-based inference · 1.5partial coupling · 1.5FPTAS · 1.3randomized reduction · 0.9polynomial-time algorithm · 0.9polynomial threshold functions · 0.4communication complexity · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Learnability of Parameter-Bounded Bayes NetsabstractBayes nets are extensively used in practice to efficiently represent joint probability distributions over a set of random variables and capture dependency relations. Prior work has shown that given a distribution P defined as the marginal distribution of a Bayes net, it is NP-hard to decide whether there is a parameter-bounded Bayes net that represents P. They called this problem LEARN. In this work, we extend the NP-hardness result of LEARN and prove the NP-hardness of a promise search variant of LEARN, whereby the Bayes net in question is guaranteed to exist and one is asked to find such a Bayes net. We complement our hardness result with a positive result about the sample complexity that is sufficient to recover a parameter-bounded Bayes net that is close (in TV distance) to a given distribution P, represented by some parameter-bounded Bayes net, thereby generalizing a degree-bounded sample complexity literature result. Arnab Bhattacharyya 0001, Davin Choo, Sutanu Gayen, Dimitrios Myrisiotis |
AAAI | 4 |
| 2025 | Computational Explorations of Total Variation DistanceabstractWe investigate some previously unexplored (or underexplored) computational aspects of total variation (TV) distance.
First, we give a simple deterministic polynomial-time algorithm for checking equivalence between mixtures of product distributions, over arbitrary alphabets.
This corresponds to a special case, whereby the TV distance between the two distributions is zero.
Second, we prove that unless $\mathsf{NP} \subseteq \mathsf{RP}$ it is impossible to efficiently estimate the TV distance between arbitrary Ising models, even in a bounded-error randomized setting. Arnab Bhattacharyya 0001, Sutanu Gayen, Kuldeep S. Meel, Dimitrios Myrisiotis, Aduri Pavan, N. V. Vinodchandran |
ICLR | 4 |
| 2025 | Total variation distance for product distributions is #P-complete
Arnab Bhattacharyya 0001, Sutanu Gayen, Kuldeep S. Meel, Dimitrios Myrisiotis, Aduri Pavan, N. V. Vinodchandran |
Inf. Process. Lett. | 4 |
| 2024 | Total Variation Distance Meets Probabilistic InferenceabstractIn this paper, we establish a novel connection between total variation (TV) distance estimation and probabilistic inference. In particular, we present an efficient, structure-preserving reduction from relative approximation of TV distance to probabilistic inference over directed graphical models. This reduction leads to a fully polynomial randomized approximation scheme (FPRAS) for estimating TV distances between same-structure distributions over any class of Bayes nets for which there is an efficient probabilistic inference algorithm. In particular, it leads to an FPRAS for estimating TV distances between distributions that are defined over a common Bayes net of small treewidth. Prior to this work, such approximation schemes only existed for estimating TV distances between product distributions. Our approach employs a new notion of partial couplings of high-dimensional distributions, which might be of independent interest. Arnab Bhattacharyya 0001, Sutanu Gayen, Kuldeep S. Meel, Dimitrios Myrisiotis, Aduri Pavan, N. V. Vinodchandran |
ICML | 4 |
| 2024 | One-Tape Turing Machine and Branching Program Lower Bounds for MCSP
Mahdi Cheraghchi, Shuichi Hirahara, Dimitrios Myrisiotis, Yuichi Yoshida |
Theory Comput. Syst. | 3 |
| 2023 | On Approximating Total Variation DistanceabstractTotal variation distance (TV distance) is a fundamental notion of distance between probability distributions. In this work, we introduce and study the problem of computing the TV distance of two product distributions over the domain {0,1}^n. In particular, we establish the following results. 1. The problem of exactly computing the TV distance of two product distributions is #P-complete. This is in stark contrast with other distance measures such as KL, Chi-square, and Hellinger which tensorize over the marginals leading to efficient algorithms. 2. There is a fully polynomial-time deterministic approximation scheme (FPTAS) for computing the TV distance of two product distributions P and Q where Q is the uniform distribution. This result is extended to the case where Q has a constant number of distinct marginals. In contrast, we show that when P and Q are Bayes net distributions the relative approximation of their TV distance is NP-hard. Arnab Bhattacharyya 0001, Sutanu Gayen, Kuldeep S. Meel, Dimitrios Myrisiotis, Aduri Pavan, N. V. Vinodchandran |
IJCAI | 4 |
| 2021 | One-Way Functions and a Conditional Variant of MKTPabstractOne-way functions (OWFs) are central objects of study in cryptography and computational complexity theory. In a seminal work, Liu and Pass (FOCS 2020) proved that the average-case hardness of computing time-bounded Kolmogorov complexity is equivalent to the existence of OWFs. It remained an open problem to establish such an equivalence for the average-case hardness of some natural NP-complete problem. In this paper, we make progress on this question by studying a conditional variant of the Minimum KT-complexity Problem (MKTP), which we call McKTP, as follows. 1. First, we prove that if McKTP is average-case hard on a polynomial fraction of its instances, then there exist OWFs. 2. Then, we observe that McKTP is NP-complete under polynomial-time randomized reductions. 3. Finally, we prove that the existence of OWFs implies the nontrivial average-case hardness of McKTP. Thus the existence of OWFs is inextricably linked to the average-case hardness of this NP-complete problem. In fact, building on recent results of Ren and Santhanam (CCC 2021), we show that McKTP is hard-on-average if and only if there are logspace-computable OWFs. Eric Allender, Mahdi Cheraghchi, Dimitrios Myrisiotis, Harsha Tirumala, Ilya Volkovich |
FSTTCS | 3 |
| 2021 | One-Tape Turing Machine and Branching Program Lower Bounds for MCSPabstractFor a size parameter s: ℕ → ℕ, the Minimum Circuit Size Problem (denoted by MCSP[s(n)]) is the problem of deciding whether the minimum circuit size of a given function f : {0,1}ⁿ → {0,1} (represented by a string of length N : = 2ⁿ) is at most a threshold s(n). A recent line of work exhibited "hardness magnification" phenomena for MCSP: A very weak lower bound for MCSP implies a breakthrough result in complexity theory. For example, McKay, Murray, and Williams (STOC 2019) implicitly showed that, for some constant μ₁ > 0, if MCSP[2^{μ₁⋅ n}] cannot be computed by a one-tape Turing machine (with an additional one-way read-only input tape) running in time N^{1.01}, then P≠NP. In this paper, we present the following new lower bounds against one-tape Turing machines and branching programs: 1) A randomized two-sided error one-tape Turing machine (with an additional one-way read-only input tape) cannot compute MCSP[2^{μ₂⋅n}] in time N^{1.99}, for some constant μ₂ > μ₁. 2) A non-deterministic (or parity) branching program of size o(N^{1.5}/log N) cannot compute MKTP, which is a time-bounded Kolmogorov complexity analogue of MCSP. This is shown by directly applying the Nečiporuk method to MKTP, which previously appeared to be difficult. 3) The size of any non-deterministic, co-non-deterministic, or parity branching program computing MCSP is at least N^{1.5-o(1)}. These results are the first non-trivial lower bounds for MCSP and MKTP against one-tape Turing machines and non-deterministic branching programs, and essentially match the best-known lower bounds for any explicit functions against these computational models. The first result is based on recent constructions of pseudorandom generators for read-once oblivious branching programs (ROBPs) and combinatorial rectangles (Forbes and Kelley, FOCS 2018; Viola 2019). En route, we obtain several related results: 1) There exists a (local) hitting set generator with seed length Õ(√N) secure against read-once polynomial-size non-deterministic branching programs on N-bit inputs. 2) Any read-once co-non-deterministic branching program computing MCSP must have size at least 2^Ω̃(N). Mahdi Cheraghchi, Shuichi Hirahara, Dimitrios Myrisiotis, Yuichi Yoshida |
STACS | 3 |
| 2020 | Algorithms and Lower Bounds for De Morgan Formulas of Low-Communication Leaf GatesabstractThe class 𝖥𝖮𝖱𝖬𝖴𝖫𝖠[s]∘𝒢 consists of Boolean functions computable by size-s de Morgan formulas whose leaves are any Boolean functions from a class 𝒢. We give lower bounds and (SAT, Learning, and PRG) algorithms for FORMULA[n^{1.99}]∘𝒢, for classes 𝒢 of functions with low communication complexity. Let R^(k)(𝒢) be the maximum k-party number-on-forehead randomized communication complexity of a function in 𝒢. Among other results, we show that: - The Generalized Inner Product function 𝖦𝖨𝖯^k_n cannot be computed in 𝖥𝖮𝖱𝖬𝖴𝖫𝖠[s]∘𝒢 on more than 1/2+ε fraction of inputs for s = o(n²/{(k⋅4^k⋅R^(k)(𝒢)⋅log (n/ε)⋅log(1/ε))²}). This significantly extends the lower bounds against bipartite formulas obtained by [Avishay Tal, 2017]. As a corollary, we get an average-case lower bound for 𝖦𝖨𝖯^k_n against 𝖥𝖮𝖱𝖬𝖴𝖫𝖠[n^{1.99}]∘𝖯𝖳𝖥^{k-1}, i.e., sub-quadratic-size de Morgan formulas with degree-(k-1) PTF (polynomial threshold function) gates at the bottom. - There is a PRG of seed length n/2 + O(√s⋅R^(2)(𝒢)⋅log(s/ε)⋅log(1/ε)) that ε-fools FORMULA[s]∘𝒢. For the special case of FORMULA[s]∘𝖫𝖳𝖥, i.e., size-s formulas with LTF (linear threshold function) gates at the bottom, we get the better seed length O(n^{1/2}⋅s^{1/4}⋅log(n)⋅log(n/ε)). In particular, this provides the first non-trivial PRG (with seed length o(n)) for intersections of n half-spaces in the regime where ε ≤ 1/n, complementing a recent result of [Ryan O'Donnell et al., 2019]. - There exists a randomized 2^{n-t}-time #SAT algorithm for 𝖥𝖮𝖱𝖬𝖴𝖫𝖠[s]∘𝒢, where t = Ω(n/{√s⋅log²(s)⋅R^(2)(𝒢)})^{1/2}. In particular, this implies a nontrivial #SAT algorithm for 𝖥𝖮𝖱𝖬𝖴𝖫𝖠[n^1.99]∘𝖫𝖳𝖥. - The Minimum Circuit Size Problem is not in 𝖥𝖮𝖱𝖬𝖴𝖫𝖠[n^1.99]∘𝖷𝖮𝖱; thereby making progress on hardness magnification, in connection with results from [Igor Carboni Oliveira et al., 2019; Lijie Chen et al., 2019]. On the algorithmic side, we show that the concept class 𝖥𝖮𝖱𝖬𝖴𝖫𝖠[n^1.99]∘𝖷𝖮𝖱 can be PAC-learned in time 2^O(n/log n). Valentine Kabanets, Sajin Koroth, Zhenjian Lu, Dimitrios Myrisiotis, Igor C. Oliveira 0001 |
CCC | 4 |
| 2019 | Circuit Lower Bounds for MCSP from Local Pseudorandom GeneratorsabstractThe Minimum Circuit Size Problem (MCSP) asks if a given truth table of a Boolean function f can be computed by a Boolean circuit of size at most theta, for a given parameter theta. We improve several circuit lower bounds for MCSP, using pseudorandom generators (PRGs) that are local; a PRG is called local if its output bit strings, when viewed as the truth table of a Boolean function, can be computed by a Boolean circuit of small size. We get new and improved lower bounds for MCSP that almost match the best-known lower bounds against several circuit models. Specifically, we show that computing MCSP, on functions with a truth table of length N, requires - N^{3-o(1)}-size de Morgan formulas, improving the recent N^{2-o(1)} lower bound by Hirahara and Santhanam (CCC, 2017), - N^{2-o(1)}-size formulas over an arbitrary basis or general branching programs (no non-trivial lower bound was known for MCSP against these models), and - 2^{Omega (N^{1/(d+2.01)})}-size depth-d AC^0 circuits, improving the superpolynomial lower bound by Allender et al. (SICOMP, 2006). The AC^0 lower bound stated above matches the best-known AC^0 lower bound (for PARITY) up to a small additive constant in the depth. Also, for the special case of depth-2 circuits (i.e., CNFs or DNFs), we get an almost optimal lower bound of 2^{N^{1-o(1)}} for MCSP. Mahdi Cheraghchi, Valentine Kabanets, Zhenjian Lu, Dimitrios Myrisiotis |
ICALP | 4 |