Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sébastien Lê Cong
dblp:222/7887
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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
1 paper |
Computational complexity · 77% Logic in computer science · 23% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
epistemic planning |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Small Undecidable Problems in Epistemic Planning · IJCAI 2018 |
Computational complexity
undecidability |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Small Undecidable Problems in Epistemic Planning · IJCAI 2018 |
Logic in computer science › epistemic logic
dynamic epistemic logic |
0.1 | 1 | 2018 | Small Undecidable Problems in Epistemic Planning · IJCAI 2018 |
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | Small Undecidable Problems in Epistemic PlanningabstractEpistemic planning extends classical planning with knowledge and is based on dynamic epistemic logic (DEL). The epistemic planning problem is undecidable in general. We exhibit a small undecidable subclass of epistemic planning over 2-agent S5 models with a fixed repertoire of one action, 6 propositions and a fixed goal. We furthermore consider a variant of the epistemic planning problem where the initial knowledge state is an automatic structure, hence possibly infinite. In that case, we show the epistemic planning problem with 1 public action and 2 propositions to be undecidable, while it is known to be decidable with public actions over finite models. Our results are obtained by reducing the reachability problem over small universal cellular automata. While our reductions yield a goal formula that displays the common knowledge operator, we show, for each of our considered epistemic problems, a reduction into an epistemic planning problem for a common-knowledge-operator-free goal formula by using 2 additional actions. Sébastien Lê Cong, Sophie Pinchinat, François Schwarzentruber |
IJCAI | 1 |