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

Denali Molitor

dblp:213/7937 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 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
2 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 45% Reinforcement learning · 45% Motion planning and robot control · 10%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › imitation learning
inverse reinforcement learning
0.812024
Massively Scalable Inverse Reinforcement Learning in Google Maps · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
example-based explanation
0.312018
Model Agnostic Supervised Local Explanations · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.312018
Model Agnostic Supervised Local Explanations · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
local explanation
0.312018
Model Agnostic Supervised Local Explanations · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
hierarchical reinforcement learning
0.212024
Massively Scalable Inverse Reinforcement Learning in Google Maps · ICLR 2024
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › motion planning › online motion planning
receding horizon planning
0.212024
Massively Scalable Inverse Reinforcement Learning in Google Maps · ICLR 2024

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

spatial parallelization · 0.8graph compression · 0.8eigenvector algorithms · 0.8random forest · 0.3local linear modeling · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Massively Scalable Inverse Reinforcement Learning in Google Maps
abstract
Inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) offers a powerful and general framework for learning humans' latent preferences in route recommendation, yet no approach has successfully addressed planetary-scale problems with hundreds of millions of states and demonstration trajectories. In this paper, we introduce scaling techniques based on graph compression, spatial parallelization, and improved initialization conditions inspired by a connection to eigenvector algorithms. We revisit classic IRL methods in the routing context, and make the key observation that there exists a trade-off between the use of cheap, deterministic planners and expensive yet robust stochastic policies. This insight is leveraged in Receding Horizon Inverse Planning (RHIP), a new generalization of classic IRL algorithms that provides fine-grained control over performance trade-offs via its planning horizon. Our contributions culminate in a policy that achieves a 16-24% improvement in route quality at a global scale, and to the best of our knowledge, represents the largest published study of IRL algorithms in a real-world setting to date. We conclude by conducting an ablation study of key components, presenting negative results from alternative eigenvalue solvers, and identifying opportunities to further improve scalability via IRL-specific batching strategies.
Matt Barnes 0001, Matthew Abueg, Oliver F. Lange, Matt Deeds, Jason Trader, Denali Molitor, Markus Wulfmeier, Shawn O'Banion
ICLR6
2018 Model Agnostic Supervised Local Explanations
abstract
Model interpretability is an increasingly important component of practical machine learning. Some of the most common forms of interpretability systems are example-based, local, and global explanations. One of the main challenges in interpretability is designing explanation systems that can capture aspects of each of these explanation types, in order to develop a more thorough understanding of the model. We address this challenge in a novel model called MAPLE that uses local linear modeling techniques along with a dual interpretation of random forests (both as a supervised neighborhood approach and as a feature selection method). MAPLE has two fundamental advantages over existing interpretability systems. First, while it is effective as a black-box explanation system, MAPLE itself is a highly accurate predictive model that provides faithful self explanations, and thus sidesteps the typical accuracy-interpretability trade-off. Specifically, we demonstrate, on several UCI datasets, that MAPLE is at least as accurate as random forests and that it produces more faithful local explanations than LIME, a popular interpretability system. Second, MAPLE provides both example-based and local explanations and can detect global patterns, which allows it to diagnose limitations in its local explanations.
Gregory Plumb, Denali Molitor, Ameet Talwalkar
NeurIPS2