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.

Luis Haug

dblp:228/8203 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · unresolved

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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 · 38% Learning theory · 24% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 20%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › imitation learning
inverse reinforcement learning
0.722019
Learner-aware Teaching: Inverse Reinforcement Learning with Preferences and Constraints · NeurIPS 2019
Teaching Inverse Reinforcement Learners via Features and Demonstrations · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Learning theory › computational learning theory
machine teaching
0.412020
Understanding the Power and Limitations of Teaching with Imperfect Knowledge · IJCAI 2020
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › nonmonotonic reasoning › preference handling
preference modeling
0.412019
Learner-aware Teaching: Inverse Reinforcement Learning with Preferences and Constraints · NeurIPS 2019
Robotics › Robot manipulation
learning from demonstration
0.312018
Teaching Inverse Reinforcement Learners via Features and Demonstrations · NeurIPS 2018

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

learner-aware teaching algorithm · 0.4inverse reinforcement learning · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 Understanding the Power and Limitations of Teaching with Imperfect Knowledge
abstract
Machine teaching studies the interaction between a teacher and a student/learner where the teacher selects training examples for the learner to learn a specific task. The typical assumption is that the teacher has perfect knowledge of the task---this knowledge comprises knowing the desired learning target, having the exact task representation used by the learner, and knowing the parameters capturing the learning dynamics of the learner. Inspired by real-world applications of machine teaching in education, we consider the setting where teacher's knowledge is limited and noisy, and the key research question we study is the following: When does a teacher succeed or fail in effectively teaching a learner using its imperfect knowledge? We answer this question by showing connections to how imperfect knowledge affects the teacher's solution of the corresponding machine teaching problem when constructing optimal teaching sets. Our results have important implications for designing robust teaching algorithms for real-world applications.
Rati Devidze, Farnam Mansouri, Luis Haug, Yuxin Chen 0001, Adish Singla
IJCAI3
2019 Learner-aware Teaching: Inverse Reinforcement Learning with Preferences and Constraints
abstract
Inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) enables an agent to learn complex behavior by observing demonstrations from a (near-)optimal policy. The typical assumption is that the learner's goal is to match the teacher’s demonstrated behavior. In this paper, we consider the setting where the learner has its own preferences that it additionally takes into consideration. These preferences can for example capture behavioral biases, mismatched worldviews, or physical constraints. We study two teaching approaches: learner-agnostic teaching, where the teacher provides demonstrations from an optimal policy ignoring the learner's preferences, and learner-aware teaching, where the teacher accounts for the learner’s preferences. We design learner-aware teaching algorithms and show that significant performance improvements can be achieved over learner-agnostic teaching.
Sebastian Tschiatschek, Ahana Ghosh, Luis Haug, Rati Devidze, Adish Singla
NeurIPS3
2018 Teaching Inverse Reinforcement Learners via Features and Demonstrations
abstract
Learning near-optimal behaviour from an expert's demonstrations typically relies on the assumption that the learner knows the features that the true reward function depends on. In this paper, we study the problem of learning from demonstrations in the setting where this is not the case, i.e., where there is a mismatch between the worldviews of the learner and the expert. We introduce a natural quantity, the teaching risk, which measures the potential suboptimality of policies that look optimal to the learner in this setting. We show that bounds on the teaching risk guarantee that the learner is able to find a near-optimal policy using standard algorithms based on inverse reinforcement learning. Based on these findings, we suggest a teaching scheme in which the expert can decrease the teaching risk by updating the learner's worldview, and thus ultimately enable her to find a near-optimal policy.
Luis Haug, Sebastian Tschiatschek, Adish Singla
NeurIPS1