VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Amanda Burton
dblp:93/8295
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 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
1 paper |
Reinforcement learning · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers |
Program verification · 52% Software testing · 37% Program analysis · 11% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Environmental and earth informatics · 100% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
policy learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Learning Long-Term Crop Management Strategies with CyclesGym · NeurIPS 2022 |
Environmental and earth informatics
agriculture |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Learning Long-Term Crop Management Strategies with CyclesGym · NeurIPS 2022 |
Software testing › protocol testing
conformance checking |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Checking conformance of a producer and a consumer · SIGSOFT FSE 2011 |
Program verification › code-level verification
machine code verification |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Directed Proof Generation for Machine Code · CAV 2010 |
Program verification
automated verification |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Directed Proof Generation for Machine Code · CAV 2010 |
Program verification
proof generation |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Directed Proof Generation for Machine Code · CAV 2010 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
reinforcement learning · 1.1crop growth model · 1.1protocol analysis · 0.1counterexample generation · 0.1directed proof generation · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 |
| 2011 | Checking conformance of a producer and a consumerabstractThis paper addresses the problem of identifying incompatibilities between two programs that operate in a producer/consumer relationship. It describes the techniques that are incorporated in a tool called PCCA (Producer-Consumer Conformance Analyzer), which attempts to (i) determine whether the consumer is prepared to accept all messages that the producer can emit, or (ii) find a counter-example: a message that the producer can emit and the consumer considers ill-formed. Evan Driscoll, Amanda Burton, Thomas W. Reps |
SIGSOFT FSE | 2 |
| 2010 | Directed Proof Generation for Machine Code
Aditya V. Thakur, Junghee Lim, Akash Lal, Amanda Burton, Evan Driscoll, Matt Elder, Tycho Andersen, Thomas W. Reps |
CAV | 4 |