Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Brian Tanner
dblp:03/5196
· DBLP profile ↗
9ranked-venue papers
4as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 9 · 4 first-author · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 4 · 2 first-author · 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.
| Artificial intelligence
8 papers |
Reinforcement learning · 97% Representation and self-supervised learning · 3% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Programming languages and type systems · 100% |
Topics — the 11 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › hierarchical reinforcement learning
option discovery |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | Reward-Respecting Subtasks for Model-Based Reinforcement Learning (Abstract Reprint) · AAAI 2024 Reward-respecting subtasks for model-based reinforcement learning · Artif. Intell. 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-based reinforcement learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Reward-Respecting Subtasks for Model-Based Reinforcement Learning (Abstract Reprint) · AAAI 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › hierarchical reinforcement learning
temporal abstraction |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Reward-Respecting Subtasks for Model-Based Reinforcement Learning (Abstract Reprint) · AAAI 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › model-based reinforcement learning
model-based planning |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Reward-respecting subtasks for model-based reinforcement learning · Artif. Intell. 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
temporal difference learning |
0.2 | 3 | 2005 | Temporal-Difference Networks with History · IJCAI 2005 TD(lambda) networks: temporal-difference networks with eligibility traces · ICML 2005 Temporal-Difference Networks · NIPS 2004 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › latent representation learning › state representation learning
predictive state representation |
0.1 | 2 | 2007 | Grounding Abstractions in Predictive State Representations · IJCAI 2007 Temporal-Difference Networks · NIPS 2004 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › function approximation › representation learning for reinforcement learning
predictive representations |
0.1 | 2 | 2005 | Using Predictive Representations to Improve Generalization in Reinforcement Learning · IJCAI 2005 TD(lambda) networks: temporal-difference networks with eligibility traces · ICML 2005 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › temporal difference learning
temporal-difference networks |
0.1 | 2 | 2005 | Temporal-Difference Networks with History · IJCAI 2005 Temporal-Difference Networks · NIPS 2004 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › temporal difference learning
eligibility traces |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | TD(lambda) networks: temporal-difference networks with eligibility traces · ICML 2005 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › function approximation › representation learning for reinforcement learning
state abstraction |
0.0 | 1 | 2007 | Grounding Abstractions in Predictive State Representations · IJCAI 2007 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
generalization in reinforcement learning |
0.0 | 1 | 2005 | Using Predictive Representations to Improve Generalization in Reinforcement Learning · IJCAI 2005 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
off-policy learning · 1.4general value functions · 1.4options framework · 0.8temporal-difference networks · 0.1predictive state representation · 0.1TD(lambda) · 0.1temporal difference learning · 0.0monte carlo · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Reward-Respecting Subtasks for Model-Based Reinforcement Learning (Abstract Reprint)abstractTo achieve the ambitious goals of artificial intelligence, reinforcement learning must include planning with a model of the world that is abstract in state and time. Deep learning has made progress with state abstraction, but temporal abstraction has rarely been used, despite extensively developed theory based on the options framework. One reason for this is that the space of possible options is immense, and the methods previously proposed for option discovery do not take into account how the option models will be used in planning. Options are typically discovered by posing subsidiary tasks, such as reaching a bottleneck state or maximizing the cumulative sum of a sensory signal other than reward. Each subtask is solved to produce an option, and then a model of the option is learned and made available to the planning process. In most previous work, the subtasks ignore the reward on the original problem, whereas we propose subtasks that use the original reward plus a bonus based on a feature of the state at the time the option terminates. We show that option models obtained from such reward-respecting subtasks are much more likely to be useful in planning than eigenoptions, shortest path options based on bottleneck states, or reward-respecting options generated by the option-critic. Reward respecting subtasks strongly constrain the space of options and thereby also provide a partial solution to the problem of option discovery. Finally, we show how values, policies, options, and models can all be learned online and off-policy using standard algorithms and general value functions. Richard S. Sutton, Marlos C. Machado, G. Zacharias Holland, David Szepesvari, Finbarr Timbers, Brian Tanner, Adam White 0001 |
AAAI | 6 |
| 2023 | Reward-respecting subtasks for model-based reinforcement learningabstractTo achieve the ambitious goals of artificial intelligence, reinforcement learning must include planning with a model of the world that is abstract in state and time. Deep learning has made progress with state abstraction, but temporal abstraction has rarely been used, despite extensively developed theory based on the options framework. One reason for this is that the space of possible options is immense, and the methods previously proposed for option discovery do not take into account how the option models will be used in planning. Options are typically discovered by posing subsidiary tasks, such as reaching a bottleneck state or maximizing the cumulative sum of a sensory signal other than reward. Each subtask is solved to produce an option, and then a model of the option is learned and made available to the planning process. In most previous work, the subtasks ignore the reward on the original problem, whereas we propose subtasks that use the original reward plus a bonus based on a feature of the state at the time the option terminates. We show that option models obtained from such reward-respecting subtasks are much more likely to be useful in planning than eigenoptions, shortest path options based on bottleneck states, or reward-respecting options generated by the option-critic. Reward respecting subtasks strongly constrain the space of options and thereby also provide a partial solution to the problem of option discovery. Finally, we show how values, policies, options, and models can all be learned online and off-policy using standard algorithms and general value functions. Richard S. Sutton, Marlos C. Machado, G. Zacharias Holland, David Szepesvari, Finbarr Timbers, Brian Tanner, Adam White 0001 |
Artif. Intell. | 6 |
| 2011 | Protecting against evaluation overfitting in empirical reinforcement learningabstractEmpirical evaluations play an important role in machine learning. However, the usefulness of any evaluation depends on the empirical methodology employed. Designing good empirical methodologies is difficult in part because agents can overfit test evaluations and thereby obtain misleadingly high scores. We argue that reinforcement learning is particularly vulnerable to environment overfitting and propose as a remedy generalized methodologies, in which evaluations are based on multiple environments sampled from a distribution. In addition, we consider how to summarize performance when scores from different environments may not have commensurate values. Finally, we present proof-of-concept results demonstrating how these methodologies can validate an intuitively useful range-adaptive tile coding method. Shimon Whiteson, Brian Tanner, Matthew E. Taylor, Peter Stone 0001 |
ADPRL | 2 |
| 2009 | RL-Glue: Language-Independent Software for Reinforcement-Learning Experiments
Brian Tanner, Adam White 0001 |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 1 |
| 2007 | Grounding Abstractions in Predictive State Representations
Brian Tanner, Vadim Bulitko, Anna Koop, Cosmin Paduraru |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2005 | TD(lambda) networks: temporal-difference networks with eligibility tracesabstractTemporal-difference (TD) networks have been introduced as a formalism for expressing and learning grounded world knowledge in a predictive form (Sutton & Tanner, 2005). Like conventional TD(0) methods, the learning algorithm for TD networks uses 1-step backups to train prediction units about future events. In conventional TD learning, the TD(λ) algorithm is often used to do more general multi-step backups of future predictions. In our work, we introduce a generalization of the 1-step TD network specification that is based on the TD(λ) learning algorithm, creating TD(λ) networks. We present experimental results that show TD(λ) networks can learn solutions in more complex environments than TD networks. We also show that in problems that can be solved by TD networks, TD(λ) networks generally learn solutions much faster than their 1-step counterparts. Finally, we present an analysis of our algorithm that shows that the computational cost of TD(λ) networks is only slightly more than that of TD networks. Brian Tanner, Richard S. Sutton |
ICML | 1 |
| 2005 | Using Predictive Representations to Improve Generalization in Reinforcement Learning
Eddie J. Rafols, Mark B. Ring, Richard S. Sutton, Brian Tanner |
IJCAI | 4 |
| 2005 | Temporal-Difference Networks with History
Brian Tanner, Richard S. Sutton |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2004 | Temporal-Difference NetworksabstractWe introduce a generalization of temporal-difference (TD) learning to networks of interrelated predictions. Rather than relating a single pre- diction to itself at a later time, as in conventional TD methods, a TD network relates each prediction in a set of predictions to other predic- tions in the set at a later time. TD networks can represent and apply TD learning to a much wider class of predictions than has previously been possible. Using a random-walk example, we show that these networks can be used to learn to predict by a fixed interval, which is not possi- ble with conventional TD methods. Secondly, we show that if the inter- predictive relationships are made conditional on action, then the usual learning-efficiency advantage of TD methods over Monte Carlo (super- vised learning) methods becomes particularly pronounced. Thirdly, we demonstrate that TD networks can learn predictive state representations that enable exact solution of a non-Markov problem. A very broad range of inter-predictive temporal relationships can be expressed in these net- works. Overall we argue that TD networks represent a substantial ex- tension of the abilities of TD methods and bring us closer to the goal of representing world knowledge in entirely predictive, grounded terms. Temporal-difference (TD) learning is widely used in reinforcement learning methods to learn moment-to-moment predictions of total future reward (value functions). In this set- ting, TD learning is often simpler and more data-efficient than other methods. But the idea of TD learning can be used more generally than it is in reinforcement learning. TD learn- ing is a general method for learning predictions whenever multiple predictions are made of the same event over time, value functions being just one example. The most pertinent of the more general uses of TD learning have been in learning models of an environment or task domain (Dayan, 1993; Kaelbling, 1993; Sutton, 1995; Sutton, Precup & Singh, 1999). In these works, TD learning is used to predict future values of many observations or state variables of a dynamical system. The essential idea of TD learning can be described as "learning a guess from a guess". In all previous work, the two guesses involved were predictions of the same quantity at two points in time, for example, of the discounted future reward at successive time steps. In this paper we explore a few of the possibilities that open up when the second guess is allowed to be different from the first. To be more precise, we must make a distinction between the extensive definition of a predic- tion, expressing its desired relationship to measurable data, and its TD definition, express- ing its desired relationship to other predictions. In reinforcement learning, for example, state values are extensively defined as an expectation of the discounted sum of future re- wards, while they are TD defined as the solution to the Bellman equation (a relationship to the expectation of the value of successor states, plus the immediate reward). It's the same prediction, just defined or expressed in different ways. In past work with TD methods, the TD relationship was always between predictions with identical or very similar extensive semantics. In this paper we retain the TD idea of learning predictions based on others, but allow the predictions to have different extensive semantics. 1 The Learning-to-predict Problem The problem we consider in this paper is a general one of learning to predict aspects of the interaction between a decision making agent and its environment. At each of a series of discrete time steps t, the environment generates an observation ot O, and the agent takes an action at A. Whereas A is an arbitrary discrete set, we assume without loss of gener- ality that ot can be represented as a vector of bits. The action and observation events occur in sequence, o1, a1, o2, a2, o3 , with each event of course dependent only on those pre- ceding it. This sequence will be called experience. We are interested in predicting not just each next observation but more general, action-conditional functions of future experience, as discussed in the next section. In this paper we use a random-walk problem with seven states, with left and right actions available in every state: 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The observation upon arriving in a state consists of a special bit that is 1 only at the two ends of the walk and, in the first two of our three experiments, seven additional bits explicitly indicating the state number (only one of them is 1). This is a continuing task: reaching an end state does not end or interrupt experience. Although the sequence depends determinis- tically on action, we assume that the actions are selected randomly with equal probability so that the overall system can be viewed as a Markov chain. The TD networks introduced in this paper can represent a wide variety of predictions, far more than can be represented by a conventional TD predictor. In this paper we take just a few steps toward more general predictions. In particular, we consider variations of the problem of prediction by a fixed interval. This is one of the simplest cases that cannot otherwise be handled by TD methods. For the seven-state random walk, we will predict the special observation bit some numbers of discrete steps in advance, first unconditionally and then conditioned on action sequences. Richard S. Sutton, Brian Tanner |
NIPS | 2 |