VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ingmar Kanitscheider
dblp:165/1360
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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.
| Artificial intelligence
3 papers |
Deep learning architectures and training · 48% Reinforcement learning · 31% Robot navigation and mapping · 21% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
multi-agent reinforcement learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Emergent Tool Use From Multi-Agent Autocurricula · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
recurrent neural network |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Kernel RNN Learning (KeRNL) · ICLR (Poster) 2019 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › recurrent neural network
recurrent neural network training |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Training recurrent networks to generate hypotheses about how the brain solves hard navigation problems · NIPS 2017 |
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping
SLAM |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Training recurrent networks to generate hypotheses about how the brain solves hard navigation problems · NIPS 2017 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology
computational neuroscience |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Training recurrent networks to generate hypotheses about how the brain solves hard navigation problems · NIPS 2017 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › computational neuroscience
spatial navigation |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Training recurrent networks to generate hypotheses about how the brain solves hard navigation problems · NIPS 2017 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
recurrent neural network · 0.6LSTM · 0.6reinforcement learning · 0.4kernel learning · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Emergent Tool Use From Multi-Agent Autocurricula
Bowen Baker, Ingmar Kanitscheider, Todor M. Markov, Yi Wu 0013, Glenn Powell, Bob McGrew, Igor Mordatch |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2019 | Kernel RNN Learning (KeRNL)
Christopher Roth, Ingmar Kanitscheider, Ila Fiete |
ICLR (Poster) | 2 |
| 2017 | Training recurrent networks to generate hypotheses about how the brain solves hard navigation problemsabstractSelf-localization during navigation with noisy sensors in an ambiguous world is computationally challenging, yet animals and humans excel at it. In robotics, {\em Simultaneous Location and Mapping} (SLAM) algorithms solve this problem through joint sequential probabilistic inference of their own coordinates and those of external spatial landmarks. We generate the first neural solution to the SLAM problem by training recurrent LSTM networks to perform a set of hard 2D navigation tasks that require generalization to completely novel trajectories and environments. Our goal is to make sense of how the diverse phenomenology in the brain's spatial navigation circuits is related to their function. We show that the hidden unit representations exhibit several key properties of hippocampal place cells, including stable tuning curves that remap between environments. Our result is also a proof of concept for end-to-end-learning of a SLAM algorithm using recurrent networks, and a demonstration of why this approach may have some advantages for robotic SLAM. Ingmar Kanitscheider, Ila Fiete |
NIPS | 1 |
| 2015 | Measuring Fisher Information Accurately in Correlated Neural PopulationsabstractNeural responses are known to be variable. In order to understand how this neural variability constrains behavioral performance, we need to be able to measure the reliability with which a sensory stimulus is encoded in a given population. However, such measures are challenging for two reasons: First, they must take into account noise correlations which can have a large influence on reliability. Second, they need to be as efficient as possible, since the number of trials available in a set of neural recording is usually limited by experimental constraints. Traditionally, cross-validated decoding has been used as a reliability measure, but it only provides a lower bound on reliability and underestimates reliability substantially in small datasets. We show that, if the number of trials per condition is larger than the number of neurons, there is an alternative, direct estimate of reliability which consistently leads to smaller errors and is much faster to compute. The superior performance of the direct estimator is evident both for simulated data and for neuronal population recordings from macaque primary visual cortex. Furthermore we propose generalizations of the direct estimator which measure changes in stimulus encoding across conditions and the impact of correlations on encoding and decoding, typically denoted by Ishuffle and Idiag respectively. Ingmar Kanitscheider, Ruben Coen Cagli, Adam Kohn, Alexandre Pouget |
PLoS Comput. Biol. | 1 |