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.

Raj Ghugare

dblp:329/5998 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
4as 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 · 4 · 4 first-author · 4 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
4 papers
Generative modeling · 43% Reinforcement learning · 32% Representation and self-supervised learning · 8%

Topics — the 13 heaviest of 14, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Generative modeling
normalizing flow
0.912025
Normalizing Flows are Capable Models for Continuous Control · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › function approximation › representation learning for reinforcement learning
policy representation
0.912025
Normalizing Flows are Capable Models for Continuous Control · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization
0.812024
Closing the Gap between TD Learning and Supervised Learning - A Generalisation Point of View · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
model stitching
0.812024
Closing the Gap between TD Learning and Supervised Learning - A Generalisation Point of View · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Generative modeling › molecular generation
molecular design
0.812024
Searching for High-Value Molecules Using Reinforcement Learning and Transformers · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Generative modeling
molecular generation
0.812024
Searching for High-Value Molecules Using Reinforcement Learning and Transformers · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
temporal difference learning
0.812024
Closing the Gap between TD Learning and Supervised Learning - A Generalisation Point of View · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Generative modeling › molecular generation
text-based molecule generation
0.812024
Searching for High-Value Molecules Using Reinforcement Learning and Transformers · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
transformer
0.812024
Searching for High-Value Molecules Using Reinforcement Learning and Transformers · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Generative modeling
latent space model
0.712023
Simplifying Model-based RL: Learning Representations, Latent-space Models, and Policies with One Objective · ICLR 2023
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-based reinforcement learning
0.712023
Simplifying Model-based RL: Learning Representations, Latent-space Models, and Policies with One Objective · ICLR 2023
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
imitation learning
0.312025
Normalizing Flows are Capable Models for Continuous Control · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
offline reinforcement learning
0.312025
Normalizing Flows are Capable Models for Continuous Control · NeurIPS 2025

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

reinforcement learning · 1.4normalizing flow · 0.9transformer · 0.8temporal difference learning · 0.8supervised learning · 0.8data augmentation · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Normalizing Flows are Capable Models for Continuous Control
abstract
Modern reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms have found success by using powerful probabilistic models, such as transformers, energy-based models, and diffusion/flow-based models. To this end, RL researchers often choose to pay the price of accommodating these models into their algorithms -- diffusion models are expressive, but are computationally intensive due to their reliance on solving differential equations, while autoregressive transformer models are scalable but typically require learning discrete representations. Normalizing flows (NFs), by contrast, seem to provide an appealing alternative, as they enable likelihoods and sampling without solving differential equations or autoregressive architectures. However, their potential in RL has received limited attention, partly due to the prevailing belief that normalizing flows lack sufficient expressivity. We show that this is not the case. Building on recent work in NFs, we propose a single NF architecture which integrates seamlessly into RL algorithms, serving as a policy, Q-function, and occupancy measure. Our approach leads to much simpler algorithms, and achieves higher performance in imitation learning, offline, goal conditioned RL and unsupervised RL.
Raj Ghugare, Benjamin Eysenbach
NeurIPS1
2024 Closing the Gap between TD Learning and Supervised Learning - A Generalisation Point of View
abstract
Some reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms have the capability of recombining together pieces of previously seen experience to solve a task never seen before during training. This oft-sought property is one of the few ways in which dynamic programming based RL algorithms are considered different from supervised learning (SL) based RL algorithms. Yet, recent RL methods based on off-the-shelf SL algorithms achieve excellent results without an explicit mechanism for stitching; it remains unclear whether those methods forgo this important stitching property. This paper studies this question in the setting of goal-reaching problems. We show that the desirable stitching property corresponds to a form of generalization: after training on a distribution of (state, goal) pairs, one would like to evaluate on (state, goal) pairs not seen together in the training data. Our analysis shows that this sort of generalization is different from i.i.d. generalization. This connection between stitching and generalization reveals why we should not expect existing RL methods based on SL to perform stitching, even in the limit of large datasets and models. We experimentally validate this result on carefully constructed datasets. This connection suggests a simple remedy, the same remedy for improving generalization in supervised learning: data augmentation. We propose a naive temporal data augmentation approach and demonstrate that adding it to RL methods based on SL enables them to successfully stitch together experience, so that they succeed in navigating between states and goals unseen together during training.
Raj Ghugare, Matthieu Geist, Glen Berseth, Benjamin Eysenbach
ICLR1
2024 Searching for High-Value Molecules Using Reinforcement Learning and Transformers
abstract
Reinforcement learning (RL) over text representations can be effective for finding high-value policies that can search over graphs. However, RL requires careful structuring of the search space and algorithm design to be effective in this challenge. Through extensive experiments, we explore how different design choices for text grammar and algorithmic choices for training can affect an RL policy's ability to generate molecules with desired properties. We arrive at a new RL-based molecular design algorithm (ChemRLformer) and perform a thorough analysis using 25 molecule design tasks, including computationally complex protein docking simulations. From this analysis, we discover unique insights in this problem space and show that ChemRLformer achieves state-of-the-art performance while being more straightforward than prior work by demystifying which design choices are actually helpful for text-based molecule design.
Raj Ghugare, Santiago Miret, Adriana Hugessen, Mariano Phielipp, Glen Berseth
ICLR1
2023 Simplifying Model-based RL: Learning Representations, Latent-space Models, and Policies with One Objective
Raj Ghugare, Homanga Bharadhwaj, Benjamin Eysenbach, Sergey Levine, Ruslan Salakhutdinov
ICLR1