Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
James Fox
dblp:178/3929
· DBLP profile ↗
8ranked-venue papers
1as first author
6since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0003-1485-2995ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 1 first-author · 6 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 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
3 papers |
Reinforcement learning · 33% Multi-agent systems · 31% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 31% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 100% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
causal reasoning |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | Reasoning about Causality in Games (Abstract Reprint) · AAAI 2024 Reasoning about causality in games · Artif. Intell. 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › imitation learning
inverse reinforcement learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Measuring Goal-Directedness · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › imitation learning › inverse reinforcement learning
maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Measuring Goal-Directedness · NeurIPS 2024 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems › game theory
game-theoretic reasoning |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Reasoning about causality in games · Artif. Intell. 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Measuring Goal-Directedness · NeurIPS 2024 |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › bounded rationality › behavioral game theory › strategic reasoning
game-theoretic reasoning |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Reasoning about Causality in Games (Abstract Reprint) · AAAI 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
maximum causal entropy · 0.8causal models · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Reasoning about Causality in Games (Abstract Reprint)abstractCausal reasoning and game-theoretic reasoning are fundamental topics in artificial intelligence, among many other disciplines: this paper is concerned with their intersection. Despite their importance, a formal framework that supports both these forms of reasoning has, until now, been lacking. We offer a solution in the form of (structural) causal games, which can be seen as extending Pearl's causal hierarchy to the game-theoretic domain, or as extending Koller and Milch's multi-agent influence diagrams to the causal domain. We then consider three key questions: i) How can the (causal) dependencies in games – either between variables, or between strategies – be modelled in a uniform, principled manner? ii) How may causal queries be computed in causal games, and what assumptions does this require? iii) How do causal games compare to existing formalisms? To address question i), we introduce mechanised games, which encode dependencies between agents' decision rules and the distributions governing the game. In response to question ii), we present definitions of predictions, interventions, and counterfactuals, and discuss the assumptions required for each. Regarding question iii), we describe correspondences between causal games and other formalisms, and explain how causal games can be used to answer queries that other causal or game-theoretic models do not support. Finally, we highlight possible applications of causal games, aided by an extensive open-source Python library. Lewis Hammond, James Fox, Tom Everitt, Ryan Carey, Alessandro Abate, Michael J. Wooldridge |
AAAI | 2 |
| 2024 | Measuring Goal-DirectednessabstractWe define maximum entropy goal-directedness (MEG), a formal measure of goal-
directedness in causal models and Markov decision processes, and give algorithms
for computing it. Measuring goal-directedness is important, as it is a critical
element of many concerns about harm from AI. It is also of philosophical interest,
as goal-directedness is a key aspect of agency. MEG is based on an adaptation of
the maximum causal entropy framework used in inverse reinforcement learning. It
can measure goal-directedness with respect to a known utility function, a hypothesis
class of utility functions, or a set of random variables. We prove that MEG satisfies
several desiderata and demonstrate our algorithms with small-scale experiments. Matt MacDermott, James Fox, Francesco Belardinelli, Tom Everitt |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2024 | Characterising Interventions in Causal GamesabstractCausal games are probabilistic graphical models that enable causal queries to be answered in multi-agent settings. They extend causal Bayesian networks by specifying decision and utility variables to represent the agents’ degrees of freedom and objectives. In multi-agent settings, whether each agent decides on their policy before or after knowing the causal intervention is important as this affects whether they can respond to the intervention by adapting their policy. Consequently, previous work in causal games imposed chronological constraints on permissible interventions. We relax this by outlining a sound and complete set of primitive causal interventions so the effect of any arbitrarily complex interventional query can be studied in multi-agent settings. We also demonstrate applications to the design of safe AI systems by considering causal mechanism design and commitment. Manuj Mishra, James Fox, Michael J. Wooldridge |
UAI | 2 |
| 2023 | Learning Task Automata for Reinforcement Learning Using Hidden Markov ModelsabstractTraining reinforcement learning (RL) agents using scalar reward signals is often infeasible when an environment has sparse and non-Markovian rewards. Moreover, handcrafting these reward functions before training is prone to misspecification. We learn non-Markovian finite task specifications as finite-state ‘task automata’ from episodes of agent experience within environments with unknown dynamics. First, we learn a product MDP, a model composed of the specification’s automaton and the environment’s MDP (both initially unknown), by treating it as a partially observable MDP and employing a hidden Markov model learning algorithm. Second, we efficiently distil the task automaton (assumed to be a deterministic finite automaton) from the learnt product MDP. Our automaton enables a task to be decomposed into sub-tasks, so an RL agent can later synthesise an optimal policy more efficiently. It is also an interpretable encoding of high-level task features, so a human can verify that the agent’s learnt tasks have no misspecifications. Finally, we also take steps towards ensuring that the automaton is environment-agnostic, making it well-suited for use in transfer learning. Alessandro Abate, Yousif Almulla, James Fox, David Hyland, Michael J. Wooldridge |
ECAI | 3 |
| 2023 | Reasoning about causality in gamesabstractCausal reasoning and game-theoretic reasoning are fundamental topics in artificial intelligence, among many other disciplines: this paper is concerned with their intersection. Despite their importance, a formal framework that supports both these forms of reasoning has, until now, been lacking. We offer a solution in the form of (structural) causal games, which can be seen as extending Pearl's causal hierarchy to the game-theoretic domain, or as extending Koller and Milch's multi-agent influence diagrams to the causal domain. We then consider three key questions: How can the (causal) dependencies in games – either between variables, or between strategies – be modelled in a uniform, principled manner? How may causal queries be computed in causal games, and what assumptions does this require? How do causal games compare to existing formalisms? Lewis Hammond, James Fox, Tom Everitt, Ryan Carey, Alessandro Abate, Michael J. Wooldridge |
Artif. Intell. | 2 |
| 2022 | Concentric Spherical Neural Network for 3D Representation LearningabstractLearning 3D representations of point clouds that generalize well to arbitrary orientations is a challenge of practical importance in domains ranging from computer vision to molecular modeling. The proposed approach uses a concentric spherical spatial representation, formed by nesting spheres discretized the icosahedral grid, as the basis for structured learning over point clouds. We propose rotationally equivariant convolutions for learning over the concentric spherical grid, which are incorporated into a novel architecture for representation learning that is robust to general rotations in 3D. We demonstrate the effectiveness and extensibility of our approach to problems in different domains, such as 3D shape recognition and predicting fundamental properties of molecular systems. James Fox, Bo Zhao 0028, Beatriz Gonzalez del Rio, Sivasankaran Rajamanickam, Rampi Ramprasad |
IJCNN | 1 |
| 2020 | Exploring AI Futures Through Role PlayabstractWe present an innovative methodology for studying and teaching the impacts of AI through a role-play game. The game serves two primary purposes: 1) training AI developers and AI policy professionals to reflect on and prepare for future social and ethical challenges related to AI and 2) exploring possible futures involving AI technology development, deployment, social impacts, and governance. While the game currently focuses on the inter-relations between short-, mid- and long-term impacts of AI, it has potential to be adapted for a broad range of scenarios, exploring in greater depths issues of AI policy research and affording training within organizations. The game presented here has undergone two years of development and has been tested through over 30 events involving between 3 and 70 participants. The game is under active development, but preliminary findings suggest that role-play is a promising methodology for both exploring AI futures and training individuals and organizations in thinking about, and reflecting on, the impacts of AI and strategic mistakes that can be avoided today. Shahar Avin, Ross Gruetzemacher, James Fox |
AIES | 3 |
| 2016 | Tigres Workflow Library: Supporting Scientific Pipelines on HPC SystemsabstractThe growth in scientific data volumes has resulted in the need for new tools that enable users to operate on and analyze data on large-scale resources. In the last decade, a number of scientific workflow tools have emerged. These tools often target distributed environments, and often need expert help to compose and execute the workflows. Data-intensive workflows are often ad-hoc, they involve an iterative development process that includes users composing and testing their workflows on desktops, and scaling up to larger systems. In this paper, we present the design and implementation of Tigres, a workflow library that supports the iterative workflow development cycle of data-intensive workflows. Tigres provides an application programming interface to a set of programming templates i.e., sequence, parallel, split, merge, that can be used to compose and execute computational and data pipelines. We discuss the results of our evaluation of scientific and synthetic workflows showing Tigres performs with minimal template overheads (mean of 13 seconds over all experiments). We also discuss various factors (e.g., I/O performance, execution mechansims) that affect the performance of scientific workflows on HPC systems. Valerie C. Hendrix, James Fox, Devarshi Ghoshal, Lavanya Ramakrishnan |
CCGrid | 2 |