Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Chip Schaff

dblp:191/6689 · also Charles B. Schaff · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
0000-0003-2811-8847ORCID · verified

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 2 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 2 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
2 papers
Motion planning and robot control · 36% Kernel, tree and ensemble methods · 23% Legged, aerial and field robots · 18%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › design optimization
co-design of morphology and control
0.412019
Jointly Learning to Construct and Control Agents using Deep Reinforcement Learning · ICRA 2019
Robotics › Legged, aerial and field robots › legged robots
legged robot locomotion
0.412019
Jointly Learning to Construct and Control Agents using Deep Reinforcement Learning · ICRA 2019
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
robot learning
0.412019
Jointly Learning to Construct and Control Agents using Deep Reinforcement Learning · ICRA 2019
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › model-based optimization
bayesian optimization
0.212016
Bayesian optimization for automated model selection · NIPS 2016
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
kernel methods
0.212016
Bayesian optimization for automated model selection · NIPS 2016
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
kernel selection
0.212016
Bayesian optimization for automated model selection · NIPS 2016
Machine learning › Learning theory
model selection
0.212016
Bayesian optimization for automated model selection · NIPS 2016

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

design distribution optimization · 0.4deep reinforcement learning · 0.4marginal likelihood · 0.2kernel between models · 0.2bayesian optimization · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Jointly Learning to Construct and Control Agents using Deep Reinforcement Learning
abstract
The physical design of a robot and the policy that controls its motion are inherently coupled, and should be determined according to the task and environment. In an increasing number of applications, data-driven and learning-based approaches, such as deep reinforcement learning, have proven effective at designing control policies. For most tasks, the only way to evaluate a physical design with respect to such control policies is empirical-i.e., by picking a design and training a control policy for it. Since training these policies is time-consuming, it is computationally infeasible to train separate policies for all possible designs as a means to identify the best one. In this work, we address this limitation by introducing a method that jointly optimizes over the physical design and control network. Our approach maintains a distribution over designs and uses reinforcement learning to optimize a control policy to maximize expected reward over the design distribution. We give the controller access to design parameters to allow it to tailor its policy to each design in the distribution. Throughout training, we shift the distribution towards higher-performing designs, eventually converging to a design and control policy that are jointly optimal. We evaluate our approach in the context of legged locomotion, and demonstrate that it discovers novel designs and walking gaits, outperforming baselines across different settings.
Chip Schaff, David Yunis, Ayan Chakrabarti, Matthew R. Walter
ICRA1
2017 Jointly optimizing placement and inference for beacon-based localization
abstract
The ability of robots to estimate their location is crucial for a wide variety of autonomous operations. In settings where GPS is unavailable, measurements of transmissions from fixed beacons provide an effective means of estimating a robot's location as it navigates. The accuracy of such a beacon-based localization system depends both on how beacons are distributed in the environment, and how the robot's location is inferred based on noisy and potentially ambiguous measurements. We propose an approach for making these design decisions automatically and without expert supervision, by explicitly searching for the placement and inference strategies that, together, are optimal for a given environment. Since this search is computationally expensive, our approach encodes beacon placement as a differential neural layer that interfaces with a neural network for inference. This formulation allows us to employ standard techniques for training neural networks to carry out the joint optimization. We evaluate this approach on a variety of environments and settings, and find that it is able to discover designs that enable high localization accuracy.
Chip Schaff, David Yunis, Ayan Chakrabarti, Matthew R. Walter
IROS1
2016 Bayesian optimization for automated model selection
abstract
Despite the success of kernel-based nonparametric methods, kernel selection still requires considerable expertise, and is often described as a “black art.” We present a sophisticated method for automatically searching for an appropriate kernel from an infinite space of potential choices. Previous efforts in this direction have focused on traversing a kernel grammar, only examining the data via computation of marginal likelihood. Our proposed search method is based on Bayesian optimization in model space, where we reason about model evidence as a function to be maximized. We explicitly reason about the data distribution and how it induces similarity between potential model choices in terms of the explanations they can offer for observed data. In this light, we construct a novel kernel between models to explain a given dataset. Our method is capable of finding a model that explains a given dataset well without any human assistance, often with fewer computations of model evidence than previous approaches, a claim we demonstrate empirically.
Gustavo Malkomes, Chip Schaff, Roman Garnett
NIPS2