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.

Ulyana Piterbarg

dblp:284/4477 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
3as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 3 first-author · 4 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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 · 44% Language models and text generation · 38% Multi-agent systems · 14%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program synthesis and code generation · 100%

Topics — the 11 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems › agentic AI
agentic reasoning
0.912025
BALROG: Benchmarking Agentic LLM and VLM Reasoning On Games · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model
0.912025
BALROG: Benchmarking Agentic LLM and VLM Reasoning On Games · ICLR 2025
Program synthesis and code generation
code generation with language models
0.912025
Training Language Models on Synthetic Edit Sequences Improves Code Synthesis · ICLR 2025
Program synthesis and code generation › code generation with language models
edit-based code generation
0.912025
Training Language Models on Synthetic Edit Sequences Improves Code Synthesis · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
embodied control
0.812024
diff History for Neural Language Agents · ICML 2024
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
LLM agents
0.812024
diff History for Neural Language Agents · ICML 2024
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model reasoning › multi-step reasoning
long-horizon reasoning
0.812024
diff History for Neural Language Agents · ICML 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
imitation learning
0.712023
NetHack is Hard to Hack · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › policy learning
neural policy learning
0.712023
NetHack is Hard to Hack · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
policy learning
0.712023
NetHack is Hard to Hack · NeurIPS 2023
Computer vision › Vision and language
vision-language model
0.312025
BALROG: Benchmarking Agentic LLM and VLM Reasoning On Games · ICLR 2025

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

linter-based refactoring · 0.9language model · 0.9fine-tuning · 0.9benchmark evaluation · 0.9instruction fine-tuning · 0.8diff history · 0.8imitation learning · 0.7demonstration dataset · 0.7action hierarchy · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 BALROG: Benchmarking Agentic LLM and VLM Reasoning On Games
abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Language Models (VLMs) possess extensive knowledge and exhibit promising reasoning abilities, however, they still struggle to perform well in complex, dynamic environments. Real-world tasks require handling intricate interactions, advanced spatial reasoning, long-term planning, and continuous exploration of new strategies—areas in which we lack effective methodologies for comprehensively evaluating these capabilities. To address this gap, we introduce BALROG, a novel benchmark designed to assess the agentic capabilities of LLMs and VLMs through a diverse set of challenging games. Our benchmark incorporates a range of existing reinforcement learning environments with varying levels of difficulty, including tasks that are solvable by non-expert humans in seconds to extremely challenging ones that may take years to master (e.g., the NetHack Learning Environment). We devise fine-grained metrics to measure performance and conduct an extensive evaluation of several popular open-source and closed-source LLMs and VLMs. Our findings indicate that while current models achieve partial success in the easier games, they struggle significantly with more challenging tasks. Notably, we observe severe deficiencies in vision-based decision-making, as several models perform worse when visual representations of the environments are provided. We release BALROG as an open and user-friendly benchmark to facilitate future research and development in the agentic community. Code and Leaderboard at balrogai.com
Davide Paglieri, Bartlomiej Cupial, Samuel Coward, Ulyana Piterbarg, Maciej Wolczyk, Akbir Khan, Eduardo Pignatelli, Lukasz Kucinski, Lerrel Pinto, Rob Fergus, Jakob N. Foerster, Jack Parker-Holder, Tim Rocktäschel
ICLR4
2025 Training Language Models on Synthetic Edit Sequences Improves Code Synthesis
abstract
Software engineers mainly write code by editing existing programs. In contrast, language models (LMs) autoregressively synthesize programs in a single pass. One explanation for this is the scarcity of sequential edit data. While high-quality instruction data for code synthesis is scarce, edit data for synthesis is even scarcer. To fill this gap, we develop a synthetic data generation algorithm called LintSeq. This algorithm refactors programs into sequences of synthetic edits by using a linter to procedurally sample across interdependent lines of source code. Synthetic edits sampled with LintSeq reflect the syntax and semantics of their programming language. To test the algorithm, we use it to refactor a dataset of instruction + program pairs into instruction + program-diff-sequence tuples. Then, we fine-tune a series of smaller LMs ranging from 2.6B to 14B parameters on both the re-factored and original versions of this dataset. We perform comprehensive evaluations comparing edit sequence code LMs against baselines on HumanEval, MBPP(+), CodeContests, DS-1000, and BigCodeBench. We show that models fine-tuned to iteratively synthesize code match or outperform baselines on pass@1, and exhibit better scaling across higher pass@k as a function of total test-time FLOPs. Finally, we also pretrain our own tiny LMs for code understanding. We show that fine-tuning these models to synthesize code edit-by-edit results in strong performance on HumanEval and MBPP(+) compared to existing code language models of similar scale such as CodeT5+, AlphaCode, and Codex.
Ulyana Piterbarg, Lerrel Pinto, Rob Fergus
ICLR1
2024 diff History for Neural Language Agents
abstract
Neural Language Models (LMs) offer an exciting solution for general-purpose embodied control. However, a key technical issue arises when using an LM-based controller: environment observations must be converted to text, which coupled with history, results in long and verbose textual prompts. As a result, prior work in LM agents is limited to restricted domains with small observation size as well as minimal needs for interaction history or instruction finetuning. In this paper, we introduce diff history, a simple and highly effective solution to these issues. By applying the Unix diff command on consecutive text observations in the interaction histories used to prompt LM policies, we can both abstract away redundant information and focus the content of textual inputs on the salient changes in the environment. On NetHack, an unsolved video game that requires long-horizon reasoning for decision-making, LMs tuned with diff history match state-of-the-art performance for neural agents while needing 1800X fewer training examples compared to prior work. Even on the simpler BabyAI-Text environment with concise text observations, we find that although diff history increases the length of prompts, the representation it provides offers a 25% improvement in the efficiency of low-sample instruction finetuning. Further, we show that diff history scales favorably across different finetuning dataset sizes. We open-source our code and data to https://diffhistory.github.io.
Ulyana Piterbarg, Lerrel Pinto, Rob Fergus
ICML1
2023 NetHack is Hard to Hack
abstract
Neural policy learning methods have achieved remarkable results in various control problems, ranging from Atari games to simulated locomotion. However, these methods struggle in long-horizon tasks, especially in open-ended environments with multi-modal observations, such as the popular dungeon-crawler game, NetHack. Intriguingly, the NeurIPS 2021 NetHack Challenge revealed that symbolic agents outperformed neural approaches by over four times in median game score. In this paper, we delve into the reasons behind this performance gap and present an extensive study on neural policy learning for NetHack. To conduct this study, we analyze the winning symbolic agent, extending its codebase to track internal strategy selection in order to generate one of the largest available demonstration datasets. Utilizing this dataset, we examine (i) the advantages of an action hierarchy; (ii) enhancements in neural architecture; and (iii) the integration of reinforcement learning with imitation learning. Our investigations produce a state-of-the-art neural agent that surpasses previous fully neural policies by 127% in offline settings and 25% in online settings on median game score. However, we also demonstrate that mere scaling is insufficient to bridge the performance gap with the best symbolic models or even the top human players.
Ulyana Piterbarg, Lerrel Pinto, Rob Fergus
NeurIPS1
2020 Abstract strategy learning underlies flexible transfer in physical problem solving
Kelsey R. Allen, Kevin A. Smith 0001, Ulyana Piterbarg, Josh Tenenbaum
CogSci3