Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Richard Evans 0001
dblp:18/6332-1
· DBLP profile ↗
9ranked-venue papers
6as first author
5since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0003-2131-8686ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 8 · 6 first-author · 4 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 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
6 papers |
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 52% Learning paradigms · 20% Language models and text generation · 11% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Human-AI interaction · 100% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Machine learning and data management · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Program synthesis and code generation · 100% |
Topics — the 11 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
neuro-symbolic reasoning |
1.1 | 2 | 2022 | Making Sense of Raw Input (Extended Abstract) · IJCAI 2022 Making sense of raw input · Artif. Intell. 2021 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
satisfiability |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Making Sense of Raw Input (Extended Abstract) · IJCAI 2022 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
causal reasoning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Making sense of sensory input · Artif. Intell. 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
unsupervised learning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Making sense of sensory input · Artif. Intell. 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › unsupervised learning
unsupervised structure learning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Making sense of raw input · Artif. Intell. 2021 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › neuro-symbolic reasoning
differentiable reasoning |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Learning Explanatory Rules from Noisy Data (Extended Abstract) · IJCAI 2018 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › logic programming
inductive logic programming |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Learning Explanatory Rules from Noisy Data (Extended Abstract) · IJCAI 2018 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › logic-based reasoning
logical entailment |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Can Neural Networks Understand Logical Entailment? · ICLR (Poster) 2018 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › natural language understanding › sentence pair modeling
natural language inference |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Can Neural Networks Understand Logical Entailment? · ICLR (Poster) 2018 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
robustness to noisy data |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Learning Explanatory Rules from Noisy Data (Extended Abstract) · IJCAI 2018 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › text generation › structured generation
hierarchical text generation |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Co-Writing Screenplays and Theatre Scripts with Language Models: Evaluation by Industry Professionals · CHI 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
neural network · 2.9logic program · 2.2SAT solving · 2.2prompt chaining · 1.3language model · 1.3backpropagation · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Co-Writing Screenplays and Theatre Scripts with Language Models: Evaluation by Industry ProfessionalsabstractLanguage models are increasingly attracting interest from writers. However, such models lack long-range semantic coherence, limiting their usefulness for longform creative writing. We address this limitation by applying language models hierarchically, in a system we call Dramatron. By building structural context via prompt chaining, Dramatron can generate coherent scripts and screenplays complete with title, characters, story beats, location descriptions, and dialogue. We illustrate Dramatron’s usefulness as an interactive co-creative system with a user study of 15 theatre and film industry professionals. Participants co-wrote theatre scripts and screenplays with Dramatron and engaged in open-ended interviews. We report reflections both from our interviewees and from independent reviewers who critiqued performances of several of the scripts to illustrate how both Dramatron and hierarchical text generation could be useful for human-machine co-creativity. Finally, we discuss the suitability of Dramatron for co-creativity, ethical considerations—including plagiarism and bias—and participatory models for the design and deployment of such tools. Piotr Mirowski, Kory W. Mathewson, Jaylen Pittman, Richard Evans 0001 |
CHI | 4 |
| 2022 | Making Sense of Raw Input (Extended Abstract)abstractHow should a machine intelligence perform unsupervised structure discovery over streams of sensory input? One approach to this problem is to cast it as an apperception task. Here, the task is to construct an explicit interpretable theory that both explains the sensory sequence and also satisfies a set of unity conditions, designed to ensure that the constituents of the theory are connected in a relational structure. However, the original formulation of the apperception task had one fundamental limitation: it assumed the raw sensory input had already been parsed using a set of discrete categories, so that all the system had to do was receive this already-digested symbolic input, and make sense of it. But what if we don't have access to pre-parsed input? What if our sensory sequence is raw unprocessed information? The central contribution of this paper is a neuro-symbolic framework for distilling interpretable theories out of streams of raw, unprocessed sensory experience. First, we extend the definition of the apperception task to include ambiguous (but still symbolic) input: sequences of sets of disjunctions. Next, we use a neural network to map raw sensory input to disjunctive input. Our binary neural network is encoded as a logic program, so the weights of the network and the rules of the theory can be solved jointly as a single SAT problem. This way, we are able to jointly learn how to perceive (mapping raw sensory information to concepts) and apperceive (combining concepts into declarative rules). Richard Evans 0001, Matko Bosnjak, Lars Buesing, Kevin Ellis, David Pfau, Pushmeet Kohli, Marek J. Sergot |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2022 | Inductive logic programming at 30abstractAbstract Inductive logic programming (ILP) is a form of logic-based machine learning. The goal is to induce a hypothesis (a logic program) that generalises given training examples and background knowledge. As ILP turns 30, we review the last decade of research. We focus on (i) new meta-level search methods, (ii) techniques for learning recursive programs, (iii) new approaches for predicate invention, and (iv) the use of different technologies. We conclude by discussing current limitations of ILP and directions for future research. Andrew Cropper, Sebastijan Dumancic, Richard Evans 0001, Stephen H. Muggleton |
Mach. Learn. | 3 |
| 2021 | Making sense of raw inputabstractHow should a machine intelligence perform unsupervised structure discovery over streams of sensory input? One approach to this problem is to cast it as an apperception task [1]. Here, the task is to construct an explicit interpretable theory that both explains the sensory sequence and also satisfies a set of unity conditions, designed to ensure that the constituents of the theory are connected in a relational structure. However, the original formulation of the apperception task had one fundamental limitation: it assumed the raw sensory input had already been parsed using a set of discrete categories, so that all the system had to do was receive this already-digested symbolic input, and make sense of it. But what if we don't have access to pre-parsed input? What if our sensory sequence is raw unprocessed information? The central contribution of this paper is a neuro-symbolic framework for distilling interpretable theories out of streams of raw, unprocessed sensory experience. First, we extend the definition of the apperception task to include ambiguous (but still symbolic) input: sequences of sets of disjunctions. Next, we use a neural network to map raw sensory input to disjunctive input. Our binary neural network is encoded as a logic program, so the weights of the network and the rules of the theory can be solved jointly as a single SAT problem. This way, we are able to jointly learn how to perceive (mapping raw sensory information to concepts) and apperceive (combining concepts into declarative rules). Richard Evans 0001, Matko Bosnjak, Lars Buesing, Kevin Ellis, David P. Reichert, Pushmeet Kohli, Marek J. Sergot |
Artif. Intell. | 1 |
| 2021 | Making sense of sensory inputabstractThis paper attempts to answer a central question in unsupervised learning: what does it mean to “make sense” of a sensory sequence? In our formalization, making sense involves constructing a symbolic causal theory that both explains the sensory sequence and also satisfies a set of unity conditions. The unity conditions insist that the constituents of the causal theory – objects, properties, and laws – must be integrated into a coherent whole. On our account, making sense of sensory input is a type of program synthesis, but it is unsupervised program synthesis. Our second contribution is a computer implementation, the Apperception Engine, that was designed to satisfy the above requirements. Our system is able to produce interpretable human-readable causal theories from very small amounts of data, because of the strong inductive bias provided by the unity conditions. A causal theory produced by our system is able to predict future sensor readings, as well as retrodict earlier readings, and impute (fill in the blanks of) missing sensory readings, in any combination. In fact, it is able to do all three tasks simultaneously. We tested the engine in a diverse variety of domains, including cellular automata, rhythms and simple nursery tunes, multi-modal binding problems, occlusion tasks, and sequence induction intelligence tests. In each domain, we test our engine's ability to predict future sensor values, retrodict earlier sensor values, and impute missing sensory data. The Apperception Engine performs well in all these domains, significantly out-performing neural net baselines. We note in particular that in the sequence induction intelligence tests, our system achieved human-level performance. This is notable because our system is not a bespoke system designed specifically to solve intelligence tests, but a general-purpose system that was designed to make sense of any sensory sequence. Richard Evans 0001, José Hernández-Orallo, Johannes Welbl, Pushmeet Kohli, Marek J. Sergot |
Artif. Intell. | 1 |
| 2020 | Inductive general game playingabstractAbstract General game playing (GGP) is a framework for evaluating an agent’s general intelligence across a wide range of tasks. In the GGP competition, an agent is given the rules of a game (described as a logic program) that it has never seen before. The task is for the agent to play the game, thus generating game traces. The winner of the GGP competition is the agent that gets the best total score over all the games. In this paper, we invert this task: a learner is given game traces and the task is to learn the rules that could produce the traces. This problem is central toinductive general game playing(IGGP). We introduce a technique that automatically generates IGGP tasks from GGP games. We introduce an IGGP dataset which contains traces from 50 diverse games, such asSudoku,Sokoban, andCheckers. We claim that IGGP is difficult for existing inductive logic programming (ILP) approaches. To support this claim, we evaluate existing ILP systems on our dataset. Our empirical results show that most of the games cannot be correctly learned by existing systems. The best performing system solves only 40% of the tasks perfectly. Our results suggest that IGGP poses many challenges to existing approaches. Furthermore, because we can automatically generate IGGP tasks from GGP games, our dataset will continue to grow with the GGP competition, as new games are added every year. We therefore think that the IGGP problem and dataset will be valuable for motivating and evaluating future research. Andrew Cropper, Richard Evans 0001, Mark Law |
Mach. Learn. | 2 |
| 2018 | Can Neural Networks Understand Logical Entailment?
Richard Evans 0001, David Saxton, David Amos, Pushmeet Kohli, Edward Grefenstette |
ICLR (Poster) | 1 |
| 2018 | Learning Explanatory Rules from Noisy Data (Extended Abstract)abstractArtificial Neural Networks are powerful function approximators capable of modelling solutions to a wide variety of problems, both supervised and unsupervised. As their size and expressivity increases, so too does the variance of the model, yielding a nearly ubiquitous overfitting problem. Although mitigated by a variety of model regularisation methods, the common cure is to seek large amounts of training data—which is not necessarily easily obtained—that sufficiently approximates the data distribution of the domain we wish to test on. In contrast, logic programming methods such as Inductive Logic Programming offer an extremely data-efficient process by which models can be trained to reason on symbolic domains. However, these methods are unable to deal with the variety of domains neural networks can be applied to: they are not robust to noise in or mislabelling of inputs, and perhaps more importantly, cannot be applied to non-symbolic domains where the data is ambiguous, such as operating on raw pixels. In this paper, we propose a Differentiable Inductive Logic framework (∂ILP), which can not only solve tasks which traditional ILP systems are suited for, but shows a robustness to noise and error in the training data which ILP cannot cope with. Furthermore, as it is trained by backpropagation against a likelihood objective, it can be hybridised by connecting it with neural networks over ambiguous data in order to be applied to domains which ILP cannot address, while providing data efficiency and generalisation beyond what neural networks on their own can achieve. Richard Evans 0001, Edward Grefenstette |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2018 | Learning Explanatory Rules from Noisy DataabstractArtificial Neural Networks are powerful function approximators capable of modelling solutions to a wide variety of problems, both supervised and unsupervised. As their size and expressivity increases, so too does the variance of the model, yielding a nearly ubiquitous overfitting problem. Although mitigated by a variety of model regularisation methods, the common cure is to seek large amounts of training data--which is not necessarily easily obtained--that sufficiently approximates the data distribution of the domain we wish to test on. In contrast, logic programming methods such as Inductive Logic Programming offer an extremely data-efficient process by which models can be trained to reason on symbolic domains. However, these methods are unable to deal with the variety of domains neural networks can be applied to: they are not robust to noise in or mislabelling of inputs, and perhaps more importantly, cannot be applied to non-symbolic domains where the data is ambiguous, such as operating on raw pixels. In this paper, we propose a Differentiable Inductive Logic framework, which can not only solve tasks which traditional ILP systems are suited for, but shows a robustness to noise and error in the training data which ILP cannot cope with. Furthermore, as it is trained by backpropagation against a likelihood objective, it can be hybridised by connecting it with neural networks over ambiguous data in order to be applied to domains which ILP cannot address, while providing data efficiency and generalisation beyond what neural networks on their own can achieve. Richard Evans 0001, Edward Grefenstette |
J. Artif. Intell. Res. | 1 |