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

Teck-Hua Ho

dblp:08/7875 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0001-5210-4977ORCID · verified

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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
2 papers
Reinforcement learning · 50% Trustworthy machine learning · 30% Optimization for machine learning · 20%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
adversarial machine learning
0.712023
Recursive reasoning-based training-time adversarial machine learning · Artif. Intell. 2023
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › multi-agent reinforcement learning
recursive reasoning
0.712023
Recursive reasoning-based training-time adversarial machine learning · Artif. Intell. 2023
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › model-based optimization
bayesian optimization
0.412020
R2-B2: Recursive Reasoning-Based Bayesian Optimization for No-Regret Learning in Games · ICML 2020
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
multi-agent reinforcement learning
0.412020
R2-B2: Recursive Reasoning-Based Bayesian Optimization for No-Regret Learning in Games · ICML 2020
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
repeated games
0.112020
R2-B2: Recursive Reasoning-Based Bayesian Optimization for No-Regret Learning in Games · ICML 2020
Computational finance and economics › economics
software economics
0.011996
An Economic Model to Estimate Software Rewriting and Replacement Times · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1996

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

recursive reasoning · 1.5bayesian optimization · 0.9adversarial training · 0.7simulation · 0.0analytical modeling · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Recursive reasoning-based training-time adversarial machine learning
Zhongxiang Dai, Kian Hsiang Low, Teck-Hua Ho
Artif. Intell.5
2020 R2-B2: Recursive Reasoning-Based Bayesian Optimization for No-Regret Learning in Games
abstract
This paper presents a recursive reasoning formalism of Bayesian optimization (BO) to model the reasoning process in the interactions between boundedly rational, self-interested agents with unknown, complex, and costly-to-evaluate payoff functions in repeated games, which we call Recursive Reasoning-Based BO (R2-B2). Our R2-B2 algorithm is general in that it does not constrain the relationship among the payoff functions of different agents and can thus be applied to various types of games such as constant-sum, general-sum, and common-payoff games. We prove that by reasoning at level 2 or more and at one level higher than the other agents, our R2-B2 agent can achieve faster asymptotic convergence to no regret than that without utilizing recursive reasoning. We also propose a computationally cheaper variant of R2-B2 called R2-B2-Lite at the expense of a weaker convergence guarantee. The performance and generality of our R2-B2 algorithm are empirically demonstrated using synthetic games, adversarial machine learning, and multi-agent reinforcement learning.
Zhongxiang Dai, Kian Hsiang Low, Patrick Jaillet, Teck-Hua Ho
ICML5
1996 An Economic Model to Estimate Software Rewriting and Replacement Times
abstract
The effort required to service maintenance requests on a software system increases as the software system ages and deteriorates. Thus, it may be economical to replace an aged software system with a freshly written one to contain the escalating cost of maintenance. We develop a normative model of software maintenance and replacement effort that enables us to study the optimal policies for software replacement. Based on both analytical and simulation solutions, we determine the timings of software rewriting and replacement, and hence the schedule of rewriting, as well as the size of the rewriting team as functions of the: user environment, effectiveness of rewriting, technology platform, development quality, software familiarity, and maintenance quality of the existing and the new software systems. Among other things, we show that a volatile user environment often leads to a delayed rewriting and an early replacement (i.e., a compressed development schedule). On the other hand, a greater familiarity with either the existing or the new software system allows for a less-compressed development schedule. In addition, we also show that potential savings from rewriting will be higher if the new software system is developed with a superior technology platform, if programmers' familiarity with the new software system is greater, and if the software system is rewritten with a higher initial quality.
Taizan Chan, Siu Leung Chung, Teck-Hua Ho
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.3