Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Alessandro Davide Ialongo
dblp:203/8124
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-author · 2 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 · 62% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 33% Motion planning and robot control · 5% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
continuous control |
1.1 | 2 | 2022 | Evaluating Model-Based Planning and Planner Amortization for Continuous Control · ICLR 2022 Iterative Amortized Policy Optimization · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-based reinforcement learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Evaluating Model-Based Planning and Planner Amortization for Continuous Control · ICLR 2022 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
policy optimization |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Iterative Amortized Policy Optimization · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes
gaussian process |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Overcoming Mean-Field Approximations in Recurrent Gaussian Process Models · ICML 2019 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference
mean-field approximation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Overcoming Mean-Field Approximations in Recurrent Gaussian Process Models · ICML 2019 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
variational inference |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Overcoming Mean-Field Approximations in Recurrent Gaussian Process Models · ICML 2019 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
robot control |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Evaluating Model-Based Planning and Planner Amortization for Continuous Control · ICLR 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
variational inference · 0.9planner amortization · 0.6model-based planning · 0.6iterative amortized optimization · 0.5low-rank representation · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Evaluating Model-Based Planning and Planner Amortization for Continuous Control
Arunkumar Byravan, Leonard Hasenclever, Piotr Trochim, Mehdi Mirza, Alessandro Davide Ialongo, Yuval Tassa, Jost Tobias Springenberg, Abbas Abdolmaleki, Nicolas Heess, Josh Merel, Martin A. Riedmiller |
ICLR | 5 |
| 2021 | Iterative Amortized Policy OptimizationabstractPolicy networks are a central feature of deep reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms for continuous control, enabling the estimation and sampling of high-value actions. From the variational inference perspective on RL, policy networks, when used with entropy or KL regularization, are a form of amortized optimization, optimizing network parameters rather than the policy distributions directly. However, direct amortized mappings can yield suboptimal policy estimates and restricted distributions, limiting performance and exploration. Given this perspective, we consider the more flexible class of iterative amortized optimizers. We demonstrate that the resulting technique, iterative amortized policy optimization, yields performance improvements over direct amortization on benchmark continuous control tasks. Joseph Marino, Alexandre Piché, Alessandro Davide Ialongo, Yisong Yue |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2019 | Overcoming Mean-Field Approximations in Recurrent Gaussian Process ModelsabstractWe identify a new variational inference scheme for dynamical systems whose transition function is modelled by a Gaussian process. Inference in this setting has either employed computationally intensive MCMC methods, or relied on factorisations of the variational posterior. As we demonstrate in our experiments, the factorisation between latent system states and transition function can lead to a miscalibrated posterior and to learning unnecessarily large noise terms. We eliminate this factorisation by explicitly modelling the dependence between state trajectories and the low-rank representation of our Gaussian process posterior. Samples of the latent states can then be tractably generated by conditioning on this representation. The method we obtain gives better predictive performance and more calibrated estimates of the transition function, yet maintains the same time and space complexities as mean-field methods. Alessandro Davide Ialongo, Mark van der Wilk, James Hensman, Carl E. Rasmussen |
ICML | 1 |