Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Michel D. Ingham
dblp:12/3404
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
0as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0001-5893-543XORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 3 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 1 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous 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
4 papers |
Reinforcement learning · 44% Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 24% Motion planning and robot control · 23% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Mathematical optimization · 100% |
Topics — the 12 heaviest of 14, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning under uncertainty
risk-aware planning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Risk-Aware Integrated Task and Motion Planning for Versatile Snake Robots Under Localization Failures · ICRA 2025 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
task and motion planning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Risk-Aware Integrated Task and Motion Planning for Versatile Snake Robots Under Localization Failures · ICRA 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › markov decision process
constrained markov decision process |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Constrained Risk-Averse Markov Decision Processes · AAAI 2021 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
markov decision process |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Constrained Risk-Averse Markov Decision Processes · AAAI 2021 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › markov decision process
risk-averse markov decision process |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Constrained Risk-Averse Markov Decision Processes · AAAI 2021 |
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization
convex optimization |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Constrained Risk-Averse Markov Decision Processes · AAAI 2021 |
Mathematical optimization › nonconvex optimization
difference of convex programming |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Constrained Risk-Averse Markov Decision Processes · AAAI 2021 |
Robotics › Legged, aerial and field robots › bio-inspired robot
snake robot |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Risk-Aware Integrated Task and Motion Planning for Versatile Snake Robots Under Localization Failures · ICRA 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
safe reinforcement learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Constrained Risk-Averse Markov Decision Processes · AAAI 2021 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
diagnosis |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Diagnosis as Approximate Belief State Enumeration for Probabilistic Concurrent Constraint Automata · AAAI 2005 |
Distributed systems › fault tolerance
fault diagnosis and reconfiguration |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Model-based programming of intelligent embedded systems and robotic space explorers · Proc. IEEE 2003 |
Embedded and real-time systems
intelligent embedded systems |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | Model-based programming of intelligent embedded systems and robotic space explorers · Proc. IEEE 2003 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
lagrangian relaxation · 1.0entropic value-at-risk · 1.0disciplined convex-concave programming · 1.0conditional value-at-risk · 1.0mixed-integer linear programming · 0.9chance-constrained POMDP · 0.9propositional inference · 0.1approximate belief state enumeration · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Risk-Aware Integrated Task and Motion Planning for Versatile Snake Robots Under Localization FailuresabstractSnake robots enable mobility through extreme terrains and confined environments in terrestrial and space applications. However, robust perception and localization for snake robots remain an open challenge due to the proximity of the sensor payload to the ground coupled with a limited field of view. To address this issue, we propose Blind-motion with Intermittently Scheduled Scans (BLISS) which combines proprioception-only mobility with intermittent scans to be resilient against both localization failures and collision risks. BLISS is formulated as an integrated task and motion planning (TAMP) problem that leads to a chance-constrained hybrid partially observable Markov decision process (CC-HPOMDP), known to be computationally intractable due to the curse of history. Our novelty lies in reformulating CC-HPOMDP as a tractable, convex mixed integer linear program. This allows us to solve BLISS-TAMP significantly faster and jointly derive optimal task-motion plans. Simulations and hardware experiments on the EELS snake robot show our method achieves over an order of magnitude computational improvement compared to state-of-the-art POMDP planners and$>50 \%$better navigation time optimality versus classical two-stage planners. Ashkan Jasour, Guglielmo Daddi, Masafumi Endo, Tiago Stegun Vaquero, Michael Paton, Marlin P. Strub, Sabrina Corpino, Michel D. Ingham, Masahiro Ono, Rohan Thakker |
ICRA | 8 |
| 2023 | EELS: Towards Autonomous Mobility in Extreme Terrain with a Versatile Snake Robot with Resilience to Exteroception FailuresabstractThe discovery of ocean worlds such as Enceladus, Titan, and Europa motivates the development of versatile autonomous mobility systems to enable the next era of space exploration where there is large uncertainty in terrain specifications due to a lack of prior surface reconnaissance missions. To explore these environments, we propose Exobiology Extant Life Surveyor (EELS): the first large-scale (4 lm long with 400 Nm peak torque) snake robot. The large scale is achieved by using a screw-based active skin mechanism to decouple motion and shape control. Autonomous mobility for such a system remains an open problem due to its many Degrees of Freedom (DoFs), complex terrain interactions, and intermittent localization failures in GPS-denied perceptually degraded environments due to the presence of fog, dust, featureless terrains, etc. We propose NEO, an autonomy architecture that scales to large DoFs to generate a versatile set of gaits to achieve mobility in unknown extreme environments. We also discuss the resilience capabilities of NEO that achieves closed-loop tracking performance by leveraging exteroception when available but can also operate with proprioception only, leading to resiliency against localization failures via graceful degradation in performance rather than unsafe behaviors. A quantitative hardware evaluation of exteroceptive leader-follower gait is performed indoors on synthetic ice along with qualitative results of field deployment of the proprioceptive leader-follower and sidewinding gaits in extreme environments of icy and sandy terrains with mobility-stressing elements such as trenches, undulations, and steep slopes (up to 35 degrees). We present a set of lessons learned from field deployments with a summary of challenges and open research problems. Video: www.rohanthakker.in/eels-neo-autonomy.html Rohan Thakker, Michael Paton, Marlin P. Strub, R. Michael Swan, Guglielmo Daddi, Rob Royce, L. Phillipe Tosi, Matthew Gildner, Tiago Stegun Vaquero, Marcel Veismann, Peter V. Gavrilov, Eloise Marteau, Joseph Bowkett, Daniel Loret de Mola Lemus, Yashwanth Kumar Nakka, Benjamin Hockman, Andrew L. Orekhov, Tristan Hasseler, Carl Leake, Benjamin Nuernberger, Pedro Proença, William Reid, William Talbot, Nikola Georgiev, Torkom Pailevanian, Avak Archanian, Eric Ambrose, Jay Jasper, Rachel Etheredge, Christiahn Roman, Dan Levine, Kyohei Otsu, Hovhannes Melikyan, Jeremy Nash, Richard Rieber, Kalind C. Carpenter, Abhinandan Jain, Lori R. Shiraishi, Daniel Pastor 0001, Sarah Yearicks, Michel D. Ingham, Ali Agha, Matthew J. Travers, Howie Choset, Joel W. Burdick, Masahiro Ono |
IROS | 41 |
| 2021 | Constrained Risk-Averse Markov Decision ProcessesabstractWe consider the problem of designing policies for Markov decision processes (MDPs) with dynamic coherent risk objectives and constraints. We begin by formulating the problem in a Lagrangian framework. Under the assumption that the risk objectives and constraints can be represented by a Markov risk transition mapping, we propose an optimization-based method to synthesize Markovian policies that lower-bound the constrained risk-averse problem. We demonstrate that the formulated optimization problems are in the form of difference convex programs (DCPs) and can be solved by the disciplined convex-concave programming (DCCP) framework. We show that these results generalize linear programs for constrained MDPs with total discounted expected costs and constraints. Finally, we illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed method with numerical experiments on a rover navigation problem involving conditional-value-at-risk (CVaR) and entropic-value-at-risk (EVaR) coherent risk measures. Mohamadreza Ahmadi, Ugo Rosolia, Michel D. Ingham, Richard M. Murray, Aaron D. Ames |
AAAI | 3 |
| 2005 | Diagnosis as Approximate Belief State Enumeration for Probabilistic Concurrent Constraint Automata
Oliver B. Martin, Brian C. Williams, Michel D. Ingham |
AAAI | 3 |
| 2005 | A unifying framework for systems modeling, control systems design, and system operationabstractCurrent engineering practice in the analysis and design of large-scale multi-disciplinary control systems is typified by some form of decomposition - whether functional or physical or discipline-based - that enables multiple teams to work in parallel and in relative isolation. Too often, the resulting system after integration is an awkward marriage of different control and data mechanisms with poor end-to-end accountability. System of systems engineering, which faces this problem on a large scale, cries out for a unifying framework to guide analysis, design, and operation. This paper describes such a framework for semi-autonomous control systems that guides analysis and modeling, shapes control system software design, and directly specifies operational intent. This paper illustrates the key concepts in the context of a large-scale, concurrent, globally distributed system of systems: NASA's proposed array-based Deep Space Network. Daniel L. Dvorak, Mark B. Indictor, Michel D. Ingham, Robert D. Rasmussen, Margaret V. Stringfellow |
SMC | 3 |
| 2003 | Model-based programming of intelligent embedded systems and robotic space explorersabstractProgramming complex embedded systems involves reasoning through intricate system interactions along lengthy paths between sensors, actuators, and control processors. This is a challenging, time-consuming, and error-prone process requiring significant interaction between engineers and software programmers. Furthermore, the resulting code generally lacks modularity and robustness in the presence of failure. Model-based programming addresses these limitations, allowing engineers to program reactive systems by specifying high-level control strategies and by assembling commonsense models of the system hardware and software. In executing a control strategy, model-based executives reason about the models "on the fly," to track system state, diagnose faults, and perform reconfigurations. This paper develops the reactive model-based programming language (RMPL) and its executive, called Titan. RMPL provides the features of synchronous, reactive languages, with the added ability of reading and writing to state variables that are hidden within the physical plant being controlled. Titan executes an RMPL program using extensive component-based declarative models of the plant to track states, analyze anomalous situations, and generate novel control sequences. Within its reactive control loop, Titan employs propositional inference to deduce the system's current and desired states, and it employs model-based reactive planning to move the plant from the current to the desired state. Brian C. Williams, Michel D. Ingham, Seung H. Chung, Paul H. Elliott |
Proc. IEEE | 2 |
| 2002 | Model-Based Programming: Controlling Embedded Systems by Reasoning About Hidden State
Brian C. Williams, Michel D. Ingham |
CP | 2 |