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

Tim Hertweck

dblp:236/5168 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
off-policy reinforcement learning
1.322024
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
1.322024
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
0.912025
Learning from negative feedback, or positive feedback or both · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reinforcement learning from human feedback
learning from feedback
0.912025
Learning from negative feedback, or positive feedback or both · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
preference learning
0.912025
Learning from negative feedback, or positive feedback or both · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
reinforcement learning from human feedback
0.912025
Learning from negative feedback, or positive feedback or both · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › off-policy reinforcement learning
experience replay
0.812024
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
0.812024
Mastering Stacking of Diverse Shapes with Large-Scale Iterative Reinforcement Learning on Real Robots · ICRA 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
hierarchical reinforcement learning
0.512021
Data-efficient Hindsight Off-policy Option Learning · ICML 2021
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › hierarchical reinforcement learning
option discovery
0.512021
Data-efficient Hindsight Off-policy Option Learning · ICML 2021
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
representation learning for control
0.512021
Representation Matters: Improving Perception and Exploration for Robotics · ICRA 2021
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › function approximation
representation learning for reinforcement learning
0.512021
Representation Matters: Improving Perception and Exploration for Robotics · ICRA 2021
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › parameter estimation
expectation-maximization
0.312025
Learning from negative feedback, or positive feedback or both · ICLR 2025
Robotics › Robot manipulation › dexterous manipulation
dexterous and mobile manipulation
0.112021
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Learning from negative feedback, or positive feedback or both
abstract
Existing 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
ICLR5
2024 Replay across Experiments: A Natural Extension of Off-Policy RL
abstract
Replaying 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
ICLR8
2024 Mastering Stacking of Diverse Shapes with Large-Scale Iterative Reinforcement Learning on Real Robots
abstract
Reinforcement 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
ICRA9
2021 Data-efficient Hindsight Off-policy Option Learning
abstract
We 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
ICML6
2021 Representation Matters: Improving Perception and Exploration for Robotics
abstract
Projecting 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
ICRA3