Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Tim Hertweck
dblp:236/5168
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
0as first author
5since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 5 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 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
5 papers |
Reinforcement learning · 64% Motion planning and robot control · 17% Robot manipulation · 9% |
Topics — the 14 heaviest of 16, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
off-policy reinforcement learning |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | Replay across Experiments: A Natural Extension of Off-Policy RL · ICLR 2024 Data-efficient Hindsight Off-policy Option Learning · ICML 2021 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
robot learning |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | Mastering Stacking of Diverse Shapes with Large-Scale Iterative Reinforcement Learning on Real Robots · ICRA 2024 Representation Matters: Improving Perception and Exploration for Robotics · ICRA 2021 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
alignment |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Learning from negative feedback, or positive feedback or both · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reinforcement learning from human feedback
learning from feedback |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Learning from negative feedback, or positive feedback or both · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
preference learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Learning from negative feedback, or positive feedback or both · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
reinforcement learning from human feedback |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Learning from negative feedback, or positive feedback or both · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › off-policy reinforcement learning
experience replay |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Replay across Experiments: A Natural Extension of Off-Policy RL · ICLR 2024 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › robot learning › robotic reinforcement learning
reinforcement learning for manipulation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Mastering Stacking of Diverse Shapes with Large-Scale Iterative Reinforcement Learning on Real Robots · ICRA 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
hierarchical reinforcement learning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Data-efficient Hindsight Off-policy Option Learning · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › hierarchical reinforcement learning
option discovery |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Data-efficient Hindsight Off-policy Option Learning · ICML 2021 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
representation learning for control |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Representation Matters: Improving Perception and Exploration for Robotics · ICRA 2021 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › function approximation
representation learning for reinforcement learning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Representation Matters: Improving Perception and Exploration for Robotics · ICRA 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › parameter estimation
expectation-maximization |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Learning from negative feedback, or positive feedback or both · ICLR 2025 |
Robotics › Robot manipulation › dexterous manipulation
dexterous and mobile manipulation |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Data-efficient Hindsight Off-policy Option Learning · ICML 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
preference optimization · 0.9expectation-maximization · 0.9off-policy reinforcement learning · 0.8iterative online/offline learning · 0.8experience replay · 0.8trust-region constraints · 0.5reinforcement learning · 0.5hindsight relabeling · 0.5dynamic programming inference · 0.5auxiliary tasks · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Learning from negative feedback, or positive feedback or bothabstractExisting preference optimization methods often assume scenarios where paired preference feedback (preferred/positive vs. dis-preferred/negative examples) is available. This requirement limits their applicability in scenarios where only unpaired feedback—for example, either positive or negative— is available. To address this, we introduce a novel approach that decouples learning from positive and negative feedback. This decoupling enables control over the influence of each feedback type and, importantly, allows learning even when only one feedback type is present. A key contribution is demonstrating stable learning from negative feedback alone, a capability not well-addressed by current methods. Our approach builds upon the probabilistic framework introduced in (Dayan and Hinton, 1997), which uses expectation-maximization (EM) to directly optimize the probability of positive outcomes (as opposed to classic expected reward maximization). We address a key limitation in current EM-based methods: they solely maximize the likelihood of positive examples, while neglecting negative ones. We show how to extend EM algorithms to explicitly incorporate negative examples, leading to a theoretically grounded algorithm that offers an intuitive and versatile way to learn from both positive and negative feedback. We evaluate our approach for training language models based on human feedback as well as training policies for sequential decision-making problems, where learned value functions are available. Abbas Abdolmaleki, Bilal Piot, Bobak Shahriari, Jost Tobias Springenberg, Tim Hertweck, Michael Bloesch, Rishabh Joshi, Thomas Lampe, Junhyuk Oh, Nicolas Heess, Jonas Buchli, Martin A. Riedmiller |
ICLR | 5 |
| 2024 | Replay across Experiments: A Natural Extension of Off-Policy RLabstractReplaying data is a principal mechanism underlying the stability and data efficiency of off-policy reinforcement learning (RL).
We present an effective yet simple framework to extend the use of replays across multiple experiments, minimally adapting the RL workflow for sizeable improvements in controller performance and research iteration times.
At its core, Replay across Experiments (RaE) involves reusing experience from previous experiments to improve exploration and bootstrap learning while reducing required changes to a minimum in comparison to prior work.
We empirically show benefits across a number of RL algorithms and challenging control domains spanning both locomotion and manipulation, including hard exploration tasks from egocentric vision.
Through comprehensive ablations, we demonstrate robustness to the quality and amount of data available and various hyperparameter choices. Finally, we discuss how our approach can be applied more broadly across research life cycles and can increase resilience by reloading data across random seeds or hyperparameter variations. Dhruva Tirumala, Thomas Lampe, José Enrique Chen, Tuomas Haarnoja, Sandy H. Huang, Guy Lever, Ben Moran, Tim Hertweck, Leonard Hasenclever, Martin A. Riedmiller, Nicolas Heess, Markus Wulfmeier |
ICLR | 8 |
| 2024 | Mastering Stacking of Diverse Shapes with Large-Scale Iterative Reinforcement Learning on Real RobotsabstractReinforcement learning solely from an agent’s self-generated data is often believed to be infeasible for learning on real robots, due to the amount of data needed. However, if done right, agents learning from real data can be surprisingly efficient through re-using previously collected sub-optimal data. In this paper we demonstrate how the increased understanding of off-policy learning methods and their embedding in an iterative online/offline scheme ("collect and infer") can drastically improve data-efficiency by using all the collected experience, which empowers learning from real robot experience only. Moreover, the resulting policy improves significantly over the state of the art on a recently proposed real robot manipulation benchmark. Our approach learns end-to-end, directly from pixels, and does not rely on additional human domain knowledge such as a simulator or demonstrations. Thomas Lampe, Abbas Abdolmaleki, Sarah Bechtle, Sandy H. Huang, Jost Tobias Springenberg, Michael Bloesch, Oliver Groth, Roland Hafner, Tim Hertweck, Michael Neunert, Markus Wulfmeier, Jingwei Zhang 0001, Francesco Nori, Nicolas Heess, Martin A. Riedmiller |
ICRA | 9 |
| 2021 | Data-efficient Hindsight Off-policy Option LearningabstractWe introduce Hindsight Off-policy Options (HO2), a data-efficient option learning algorithm. Given any trajectory, HO2 infers likely option choices and backpropagates through the dynamic programming inference procedure to robustly train all policy components off-policy and end-to-end. The approach outperforms existing option learning methods on common benchmarks. To better understand the option framework and disentangle benefits from both temporal and action abstraction, we evaluate ablations with flat policies and mixture policies with comparable optimization. The results highlight the importance of both types of abstraction as well as off-policy training and trust-region constraints, particularly in challenging, simulated 3D robot manipulation tasks from raw pixel inputs. Finally, we intuitively adapt the inference step to investigate the effect of increased temporal abstraction on training with pre-trained options and from scratch. Markus Wulfmeier, Dushyant Rao, Roland Hafner, Thomas Lampe, Abbas Abdolmaleki, Tim Hertweck, Michael Neunert, Dhruva Tirumala, Noah Y. Siegel, Nicolas Heess, Martin A. Riedmiller |
ICML | 6 |
| 2021 | Representation Matters: Improving Perception and Exploration for RoboticsabstractProjecting high-dimensional environment observations into lower-dimensional structured representations can considerably improve data-efficiency for reinforcement learning in domains with limited data such as robotics. Can a single generally useful representation be found? In order to answer this question, it is important to understand how the representation will be used by the agent and what properties such a good representation should have. In this paper we systematically evaluate a number of common learnt and hand-engineered representations in the context of three robotics tasks: lifting, stacking and pushing of 3D blocks. The representations are evaluated in two use-cases: as input to the agent, or as a source of auxiliary tasks. Furthermore, the value of each representation is evaluated in terms of three properties: dimensionality, observability and disentanglement. We can significantly improve performance in both use-cases and demonstrate that some representations can perform commensurate to simulator states as agent inputs. Finally, our results challenge common intuitions by demonstrating that: 1) dimensionality strongly matters for task generation, but is negligible for inputs, 2) observability of task-relevant aspects mostly affects the input representation use-case, and 3) disentanglement leads to better auxiliary tasks, but has only limited benefits for input representations. This work serves as a step towards a more systematic understanding of what makes a good representation for control in robotics, enabling practitioners to make more informed choices for developing new learned or hand-engineered representations. Markus Wulfmeier, Arunkumar Byravan, Tim Hertweck, Irina Higgins, Tejas Kulkarni, Malcolm Reynolds, Denis Teplyashin, Roland Hafner, Thomas Lampe, Martin A. Riedmiller |
ICRA | 3 |