Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Meng-Yu Tsai 0001
dblp:17/4105
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 3 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
3 papers |
Reinforcement learning · 74% Trustworthy machine learning · 13% Multi-agent systems · 13% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 100% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
exploration |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Uncertainty-Guided Exploration for Efficient AlphaZero Training · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › exploration
uncertainty-guided exploration |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Uncertainty-Guided Exploration for Efficient AlphaZero Training · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
value function estimation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Uncertainty-Guided Exploration for Efficient AlphaZero Training · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial robustness |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Are AlphaZero-like Agents Robust to Adversarial Perturbations? · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › model-based reinforcement learning › model-based planning
alphazero-style search |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | AlphaZero-based Proof Cost Network to Aid Game Solving · ICLR 2022 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems › autonomous agents
game-playing agents |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Are AlphaZero-like Agents Robust to Adversarial Perturbations? · NeurIPS 2022 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
game solving |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | AlphaZero-based Proof Cost Network to Aid Game Solving · ICLR 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
monte carlo tree search · 2.6neural network · 1.1alphazero · 1.1bayesian inference · 0.9policy value neural networks · 0.6adversarial search · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Uncertainty-Guided Exploration for Efficient AlphaZero TrainingabstractAlphaZero has achieved remarkable success in complex decision-making problems through self-play and neural network training. However, its self-play process remains inefficient due to limited exploration of high-uncertainty positions, the overlooked runner-up decisions in Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), and high variance in value labels. To address these challenges, we propose and evaluate uncertainty-guided exploration by branching from high-uncertainty positions using our proposed Label Change Rate (LCR) metric, which is further refined by a Bayesian inference framework. Our proposed approach leverages runner-up MCTS decisions to create multiple variations, and ensembles value labels across these variations to reduce variance. We investigate three key design parameters for our branching strategy: where to branch, how many variations to branch, and which move to play in the new branch. Our empirical findings indicate that branching with 10 variations per game provides the best performance-exploration balance. Overall, our end-to-end results show an improved sample efficiency over the baseline by 58.5\% on 9x9 Go in the early stage of training and by 47.3\% on 19x19 Go in the late stage of training. Scott Cheng, Meng-Yu Tsai 0001, Ding-Yong Hong, Mahmut T. Kandemir |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2022 | AlphaZero-based Proof Cost Network to Aid Game Solving
Ti-Rong Wu, Chung-Chin Shih, Ting-Han Wei, Meng-Yu Tsai 0001, Wei-Yuan Hsu, I-Chen Wu |
ICLR | 4 |
| 2022 | Are AlphaZero-like Agents Robust to Adversarial Perturbations?abstractThe success of AlphaZero (AZ) has demonstrated that neural-network-based Go AIs can surpass human performance by a large margin. Given that the state space of Go is extremely large and a human player can play the game from any legal state, we ask whether adversarial states exist for Go AIs that may lead them to play surprisingly wrong actions.In this paper, we first extend the concept of adversarial examples to the game of Go: we generate perturbed states that are ``semantically'' equivalent to the original state by adding meaningless moves to the game, and an adversarial state is a perturbed state leading to an undoubtedly inferior action that is obvious even for Go beginners. However, searching the adversarial state is challenging due to the large, discrete, and non-differentiable search space. To tackle this challenge, we develop the first adversarial attack on Go AIs that can efficiently search for adversarial states by strategically reducing the search space. This method can also be extended to other board games such as NoGo. Experimentally, we show that the actions taken by both Policy-Value neural network (PV-NN) and Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) can be misled by adding one or two meaningless stones; for example, on 58\% of the AlphaGo Zero self-play games, our method can make the widely used KataGo agent with 50 simulations of MCTS plays a losing action by adding two meaningless stones. We additionally evaluated the adversarial examples found by our algorithm with amateur human Go players, and 90\% of examples indeed lead the Go agent to play an obviously inferior action. Ourcode is available at \url{https://PaperCode.cc/GoAttack}. Li-Cheng Lan, Huan Zhang 0001, Ti-Rong Wu, Meng-Yu Tsai 0001, I-Chen Wu, Cho-Jui Hsieh |
NeurIPS | 4 |