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

Yuri Burda

dblp:156/0238 · also Yura Burda · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
7ranked-venue papers
3as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 3 first-author · 1 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
6 papers
Reinforcement learning · 48% Language models and text generation · 25% Trustworthy machine learning · 8%

Topics — the 17 heaviest of 19, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
exploration
0.822019
Exploration by random network distillation · ICLR (Poster) 2019
Large-Scale Study of Curiosity-Driven Learning · ICLR (Poster) 2019
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.812024
Let's Verify Step by Step · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › exploration
intrinsic motivation
0.822019
Exploration by random network distillation · ICLR (Poster) 2019
Large-Scale Study of Curiosity-Driven Learning · ICLR (Poster) 2019
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model reasoning
0.812024
Let's Verify Step by Step · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reinforcement learning from human feedback
process reward model
0.812024
Let's Verify Step by Step · ICLR 2024
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model reasoning
process supervision
0.812024
Let's Verify Step by Step · ICLR 2024
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
reasoning verification
0.812024
Let's Verify Step by Step · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reward learning
reward modeling
0.812024
Let's Verify Step by Step · ICLR 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › exploration
novelty-based exploration
0.412019
Exploration by random network distillation · ICLR (Poster) 2019
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › exploration › novelty-based exploration
random network distillation
0.412019
Exploration by random network distillation · ICLR (Poster) 2019
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems
agent modeling
0.312018
Learning Policy Representations in Multiagent Systems · ICML 2018
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation › model adaptation › online adaptation
continuous adaptation
0.312018
Continuous Adaptation via Meta-Learning in Nonstationary and Competitive Environments · ICLR 2018
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
meta-learning
0.312018
Continuous Adaptation via Meta-Learning in Nonstationary and Competitive Environments · ICLR 2018
Machine learning › Time series and sequential data
non-stationary environments
0.312018
Continuous Adaptation via Meta-Learning in Nonstationary and Competitive Environments · ICLR 2018
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › function approximation › representation learning for reinforcement learning
policy representation
0.312018
Learning Policy Representations in Multiagent Systems · ICML 2018
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › function approximation › representation learning for reinforcement learning
policy representation learning
0.312018
Learning Policy Representations in Multiagent Systems · ICML 2018
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › parameter estimation
likelihood estimation
0.112017
On the Quantitative Analysis of Decoder-Based Generative Models · ICLR (Poster) 2017

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

process supervision · 0.8outcome supervision · 0.8active learning · 0.8random network distillation · 0.4meta-learning · 0.3imitation learning · 0.3deep reinforcement learning · 0.3continuous adaptation · 0.3quantitative analysis · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Let's Verify Step by Step
abstract
In recent years, large language models have greatly improved in their ability to perform complex multi-step reasoning. However, even state-of-the-art models still regularly produce logical mistakes. To train more reliable models, we can turn either to outcome supervision, which provides feedback for a final result, or process supervision, which provides feedback for each intermediate reasoning step. Given the importance of training reliable models, and given the high cost of human feedback, it is important to carefully compare the both methods. Recent work has already begun this comparison, but many questions still remain. We conduct our own investigation, finding that process supervision significantly outperforms outcome supervision for training models to solve problems from the challenging MATH dataset. Our process-supervised model solves 78% of problems from a representative subset of the MATH test set. Additionally, we show that active learning significantly improves the efficacy of process supervision. To support related research, we also release PRM800K, the complete dataset of 800,000 step-level human feedback labels used to train our best reward model.
Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, Karl Cobbe
ICLR3
2019 Large-Scale Study of Curiosity-Driven Learning
Yuri Burda, Deepak Pathak, Amos J. Storkey, Trevor Darrell, Alexei A. Efros
ICLR (Poster)1
2019 Exploration by random network distillation
Yuri Burda, Amos J. Storkey, Oleg Klimov
ICLR (Poster)1
2018 Continuous Adaptation via Meta-Learning in Nonstationary and Competitive Environments
Maruan Al-Shedivat, Trapit Bansal, Yuri Burda, Ilya Sutskever, Igor Mordatch, Pieter Abbeel
ICLR3
2018 Learning Policy Representations in Multiagent Systems
abstract
Modeling agent behavior is central to understanding the emergence of complex phenomena in multiagent systems. Prior work in agent modeling has largely been task-specific and driven by hand-engineering domain-specific prior knowledge. We propose a general learning framework for modeling agent behavior in any multiagent system using only a handful of interaction data. Our framework casts agent modeling as a representation learning problem. Consequently, we construct a novel objective inspired by imitation learning and agent identification and design an algorithm for unsupervised learning of representations of agent policies. We demonstrate empirically the utility of the proposed framework in (i) a challenging high-dimensional competitive environment for continuous control and (ii) a cooperative environment for communication, on supervised predictive tasks, unsupervised clustering, and policy optimization using deep reinforcement learning.
Aditya Grover, Maruan Al-Shedivat, Jayesh K. Gupta, Yuri Burda
ICML4
2017 On the Quantitative Analysis of Decoder-Based Generative Models
Yuhuai Wu, Yuri Burda, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Roger B. Grosse
ICLR (Poster)2
2015 Accurate and conservative estimates of MRF log-likelihood using reverse annealing
abstract
Markov random fields (MRFs) are difficult to evaluate as generative models because computing the test log-probabilities requires the intractable partition function. Annealed importance sampling (AIS) is widely used to estimate MRF partition functions, and often yields quite accurate results. However, AIS is prone to overestimate the log-likelihood with little indication that anything is wrong. We present the Reverse AIS Estimator (RAISE), a stochastic lower bound on the log-likelihood of an approximation to the original MRF model. RAISE requires only the same MCMC transition operators as standard AIS. Experimental results indicate that RAISE agrees closely with AIS log-probability estimates for RBMs, DBMs, and DBNs, but typically errs on the side of underestimating, rather than overestimating, the log-likelihood.
Yuri Burda, Roger B. Grosse, Ruslan Salakhutdinov
AISTATS1