VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Scott Sussex
dblp:241/6295
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
3as first author
6since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 3 first-author · 6 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
7 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 47% Optimization for machine learning · 28% Reinforcement learning · 17% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
3 papers |
Smart cities and intelligent transportation · 40% Bioinformatics and computational biology · 30% Environmental and earth informatics · 30% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Mathematical optimization · 100% |
Topics — the 16 heaviest of 16, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › causal inference
causal discovery |
1.9 | 3 | 2025 | Standardizing Structural Causal Models · ICLR 2025 Amortized Inference for Causal Structure Learning · NeurIPS 2022 Near-Optimal Multi-Perturbation Experimental Design for Causal Structure Learning · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › model-based optimization
bayesian optimization |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | Adversarial Causal Bayesian Optimization · ICLR 2024 Model-based Causal Bayesian Optimization · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › model-based optimization › bayesian optimization
causal bayesian optimization |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | Adversarial Causal Bayesian Optimization · ICLR 2024 Model-based Causal Bayesian Optimization · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
causal inference |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Standardizing Structural Causal Models · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › causal inference › causal model
structural causal model |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Standardizing Structural Causal Models · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
online learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Adversarial Causal Bayesian Optimization · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
regret minimization |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Adversarial Causal Bayesian Optimization · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › causal inference
interventional data |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Amortized Inference for Causal Structure Learning · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
policy learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Learning Long-Term Crop Management Strategies with CyclesGym · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
experimental design |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Near-Optimal Multi-Perturbation Experimental Design for Causal Structure Learning · NeurIPS 2021 |
Mathematical optimization
submodular optimization |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Near-Optimal Multi-Perturbation Experimental Design for Causal Structure Learning · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
off-policy evaluation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Combining parametric and nonparametric models for off-policy evaluation · ICML 2019 |
Data integration and cleaning › data generation
synthetic data generation |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Standardizing Structural Causal Models · ICLR 2025 |
Smart cities and intelligent transportation
shared mobility |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Adversarial Causal Bayesian Optimization · ICLR 2024 |
Environmental and earth informatics
agriculture |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Learning Long-Term Crop Management Strategies with CyclesGym · NeurIPS 2022 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology
gene expression analysis |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Amortized Inference for Causal Structure Learning · NeurIPS 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
standardization · 1.7identifiability analysis · 1.7submodular optimization · 1.5multiplicative weights · 1.5counterfactual reasoning · 1.5variational inference · 1.1simulation-based training · 1.1permutation-invariant architecture · 1.1crop growth model · 1.1structural causal model · 0.7reinforcement learning · 0.6submodularity · 0.5approximation algorithm · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Standardizing Structural Causal ModelsabstractSynthetic datasets generated by structural causal models (SCMs) are commonly used for benchmarking causal structure learning algorithms. However, the variances and pairwise correlations in SCM data tend to increase along the causal ordering. Several popular algorithms exploit these artifacts, possibly leading to conclusions that do not generalize to real-world settings. Existing metrics like $\operatorname{Var}$-sortability and $\operatorname{R^2}$-sortability quantify these patterns, but they do not provide tools to remedy them. To address this, we propose internally-standardized structural causal models (iSCMs), a modification of SCMs that introduces a standardization operation at each variable during the generative process. By construction, iSCMs are not $\operatorname{Var}$-sortable. We also find empirical evidence that they are mostly not $\operatorname{R^2}$-sortable for commonly-used graph families. Moreover, contrary to the post-hoc standardization of data generated by standard SCMs, we prove that linear iSCMs are less identifiable from prior knowledge on the weights and do not collapse to deterministic relationships in large systems, which may make iSCMs a useful model in causal inference beyond the benchmarking problem studied here. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/werkaaa/iscm. Weronika Ormaniec, Scott Sussex, Lars Lorch, Bernhard Schölkopf, Andreas Krause 0001 |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2024 | Adversarial Causal Bayesian OptimizationabstractIn Causal Bayesian Optimization (CBO), an agent intervenes on a structural causal model with known graph but unknown mechanisms to maximize a downstream reward variable. In this paper, we consider the generalization where other agents or external events also intervene on the system, which is key for enabling adaptiveness to non-stationarities such as weather changes, market forces, or adversaries. We formalize this generalization of CBO as Adversarial Causal Bayesian Optimization (ACBO) and introduce the first algorithm for ACBO with bounded regret: Causal Bayesian Optimization with Multiplicative Weights (CBO-MW). Our approach combines a classical online learning strategy with causal modeling of the rewards. To achieve this, it computes optimistic counterfactual reward estimates by propagating uncertainty through the causal graph. We derive regret bounds for CBO-MW that naturally depend on graph-related quantities. We further propose a scalable implementation for the case of combinatorial interventions and submodular rewards. Empirically, CBO-MW outperforms non-causal and non-adversarial Bayesian optimization methods on synthetic environments and environments based on real-word data. Our experiments include a realistic demonstration of how CBO-MW can be used to learn users' demand patterns in a shared mobility system and reposition vehicles in strategic areas. Scott Sussex, Pier Giuseppe Sessa, Anastasia Makarova, Andreas Krause 0001 |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2023 | Model-based Causal Bayesian Optimization
Scott Sussex, Anastasia Makarova, Andreas Krause 0001 |
ICLR | 1 |
| 2022 | Amortized Inference for Causal Structure LearningabstractInferring causal structure poses a combinatorial search problem that typically involves evaluating structures with a score or independence test. The resulting search is costly, and designing suitable scores or tests that capture prior knowledge is difficult. In this work, we propose to amortize causal structure learning. Rather than searching over structures, we train a variational inference model to directly predict the causal structure from observational or interventional data. This allows our inference model to acquire domain-specific inductive biases for causal discovery solely from data generated by a simulator, bypassing both the hand-engineering of suitable score functions and the search over graphs. The architecture of our inference model emulates permutation invariances that are crucial for statistical efficiency in structure learning, which facilitates generalization to significantly larger problem instances than seen during training. On synthetic data and semisynthetic gene expression data, our models exhibit robust generalization capabilities when subject to substantial distribution shifts and significantly outperform existing algorithms, especially in the challenging genomics domain. Our code and models are publicly available at: https://github.com/larslorch/avici Lars Lorch, Scott Sussex, Jonas Rothfuss, Andreas Krause 0001, Bernhard Schölkopf |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2022 | Learning Long-Term Crop Management Strategies with CyclesGymabstractTo improve the sustainability and resilience of modern food systems, designing improved crop management strategies is crucial. The increasing abundance of data on agricultural systems suggests that future strategies could benefit from adapting to environmental conditions, but how to design these adaptive policies poses a new frontier. A natural technique for learning policies in these kinds of sequential decision-making problems is reinforcement learning (RL). To obtain the large number of samples required to learn effective RL policies, existing work has used mechanistic crop growth models (CGMs) as simulators. These solutions focus on single-year, single-crop simulations for learning strategies for a single agricultural management practice. However, to learn sustainable long-term policies we must be able to train in multi-year environments, with multiple crops, and consider a wider array of management techniques. We introduce CYCLESGYM, an RL environment based on the multi-year, multi-crop CGM Cycles. CYCLESGYM allows for long-term planning in agroecosystems, provides modular state space and reward constructors and weather generators, and allows for complex actions. For RL researchers, this is a novel benchmark to investigate issues arising in real-world applications. For agronomists, we demonstrate the potential of RL as a powerful optimization tool for agricultural systems management in multi-year case studies on nitrogen (N) fertilization and crop planning scenarios. Matteo Turchetta, Luca Corinzia, Scott Sussex, Amanda Burton, Juan Herrera, Ioannis N. Athanasiadis, Joachim M. Buhmann, Andreas Krause 0001 |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2021 | Near-Optimal Multi-Perturbation Experimental Design for Causal Structure LearningabstractCausal structure learning is a key problem in many domains. Causal structures can be learnt by performing experiments on the system of interest. We address the largely unexplored problem of designing a batch of experiments that each simultaneously intervene on multiple variables. While potentially more informative than the commonly considered single-variable interventions, selecting such interventions is algorithmically much more challenging, due to the doubly-exponential combinatorial search space over sets of composite interventions. In this paper, we develop efficient algorithms for optimizing different objective functions quantifying the informativeness of a budget-constrained batch of experiments. By establishing novel submodularity properties of these objectives, we provide approximation guarantees for our algorithms. Our algorithms empirically perform superior to both random interventions and algorithms that only select single-variable interventions. Scott Sussex, Caroline Uhler, Andreas Krause 0001 |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2019 | Combining parametric and nonparametric models for off-policy evaluationabstractWe consider a model-based approach to perform batch off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. Our method takes a mixture-of-experts approach to combine parametric and non-parametric models of the environment such that the final value estimate has the least expected error. We do so by first estimating the local accuracy of each model and then using a planner to select which model to use at every time step as to minimize the return error estimate along entire trajectories. Across a variety of domains, our mixture-based approach outperforms the individual models alone as well as state-of-the-art importance sampling-based estimators. Omer Gottesman, Yao Liu 0009, Scott Sussex, Emma Brunskill, Finale Doshi-Velez |
ICML | 3 |