Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ian Char
dblp:157/7519
· DBLP profile ↗
8ranked-venue papers
2as first author
6since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 2 first-author · 6 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous 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
7 papers |
Reinforcement learning · 39% Trustworthy machine learning · 20% Motion planning and robot control · 19% |
Topics — the 23 heaviest of 24, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | Sampling-based Multi-dimensional Recalibration · ICML 2024 Beyond Pinball Loss: Quantile Methods for Calibrated Uncertainty Quantification · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
exploration |
1.2 | 2 | 2023 | Near-optimal Policy Identification in Active Reinforcement Learning · ICLR 2023 Exploration via Planning for Information about the Optimal Trajectory · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
probability calibration |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Sampling-based Multi-dimensional Recalibration · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › partially observable reinforcement learning
history representation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | PID-Inspired Inductive Biases for Deep Reinforcement Learning in Partially Observable Control Tasks · NeurIPS 2023 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
locomotion control |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | PID-Inspired Inductive Biases for Deep Reinforcement Learning in Partially Observable Control Tasks · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reinforcement learning theory
near-optimal policy identification |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Near-optimal Policy Identification in Active Reinforcement Learning · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
partially observable reinforcement learning |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | PID-Inspired Inductive Biases for Deep Reinforcement Learning in Partially Observable Control Tasks · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
policy optimization |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Near-optimal Policy Identification in Active Reinforcement Learning · ICLR 2023 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
robot control |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | PID-Inspired Inductive Biases for Deep Reinforcement Learning in Partially Observable Control Tasks · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › exploration
information-theoretic exploration |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Exploration via Planning for Information about the Optimal Trajectory · NeurIPS 2022 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
trajectory optimization |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Exploration via Planning for Information about the Optimal Trajectory · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference
variational inference |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Deep Attentive Variational Inference · ICLR 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
calibration |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Beyond Pinball Loss: Quantile Methods for Calibrated Uncertainty Quantification · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › regression
quantile regression |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Beyond Pinball Loss: Quantile Methods for Calibrated Uncertainty Quantification · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › model-based optimization
bayesian optimization |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Offline Contextual Bayesian Optimization · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
black-box optimization |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Offline Contextual Bayesian Optimization · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › model-based optimization › bayesian optimization
contextual bayesian optimization |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Offline Contextual Bayesian Optimization · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › optimization
offline optimization |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Offline Contextual Bayesian Optimization · NeurIPS 2019 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › robot control
tracking control |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | PID-Inspired Inductive Biases for Deep Reinforcement Learning in Partially Observable Control Tasks · NeurIPS 2023 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › robot control
trajectory tracking |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | PID-Inspired Inductive Biases for Deep Reinforcement Learning in Partially Observable Control Tasks · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
sample efficiency |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Exploration via Planning for Information about the Optimal Trajectory · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
multi-task optimization |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Offline Contextual Bayesian Optimization · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › curriculum reinforcement learning
task selection |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Offline Contextual Bayesian Optimization · NeurIPS 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
sampling · 0.8bootstrap · 0.8reinforcement learning · 0.7recurrent neural network · 0.7active learning · 0.7PID control · 0.7variational inference · 0.6planning for exploration · 0.6expected information gain · 0.6attention · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Sampling-based Multi-dimensional RecalibrationabstractCalibration of probabilistic forecasts in the regression setting has been widely studied in the single dimensional case, where the output variables are assumed to be univariate. In many problem settings, however, the output variables are multi-dimensional, and in the presence of dependence across the output dimensions, measuring calibration and performing recalibration for each dimension separately can be both misleading and detrimental. In this work, we focus on representing predictive uncertainties via samples, and propose a recalibration method which accounts for the joint distribution across output dimensions to produce calibrated samples. Based on the concept of highest density regions (HDR), we define the notion of HDR calibration, and show that our recalibration method produces samples which are HDR calibrated. We demonstrate the performance of our method and the quality of the recalibrated samples on a suite of benchmark datasets in multi-dimensional regression, a real-world dataset in modeling plasma dynamics during nuclear fusion reactions, and on a decision-making application in forecasting demand. Youngseog Chung, Ian Char, Jeff G. Schneider |
ICML | 2 |
| 2023 | Near-optimal Policy Identification in Active Reinforcement Learning
Viraj Mehta, Johannes Kirschner, Ian Char, Willie Neiswanger, Jeff G. Schneider, Andreas Krause 0001, Ilija Bogunovic |
ICLR | 4 |
| 2023 | PID-Inspired Inductive Biases for Deep Reinforcement Learning in Partially Observable Control TasksabstractDeep reinforcement learning (RL) has shown immense potential for learning to control systems through data alone. However, one challenge deep RL faces is that the full state of the system is often not observable. When this is the case, the policy needs to leverage the history of observations to infer the current state. At the same time, differences between the training and testing environments makes it critical for the policy not to overfit to the sequence of observations it sees at training time. As such, there is an important balancing act between having the history encoder be flexible enough to extract relevant information, yet be robust to changes in the environment. To strike this balance, we look to the PID controller for inspiration. We assert the PID controller's success shows that only summing and differencing are needed to accumulate information over time for many control tasks. Following this principle, we propose two architectures for encoding history: one that directly uses PID features and another that extends these core ideas and can be used in arbitrary control tasks. When compared with prior approaches, our encoders produce policies that are often more robust and achieve better performance on a variety of tracking tasks. Going beyond tracking tasks, our policies achieve 1.7x better performance on average over previous state-of-the-art methods on a suite of locomotion control tasks. Ian Char, Jeff G. Schneider |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2022 | Deep Attentive Variational Inference
Ifigeneia Apostolopoulou, Ian Char, Elan Rosenfeld, Artur Dubrawski |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2022 | Exploration via Planning for Information about the Optimal TrajectoryabstractMany potential applications of reinforcement learning (RL) are stymied by the large numbers of samples required to learn an effective policy. This is especially true when applying RL to real-world control tasks, e.g. in the sciences or robotics, where executing a policy in the environment is costly. In popular RL algorithms, agents typically explore either by adding stochasticity to a reward-maximizing policy or by attempting to gather maximal information about environment dynamics without taking the given task into account. In this work, we develop a method that allows us to plan for exploration while taking both the task and the current knowledge about the dynamics into account. The key insight to our approach is to plan an action sequence that maximizes the expected information gain about the optimal trajectory for the task at hand. We demonstrate that our method learns strong policies with 2x fewer samples than strong exploration baselines and 200x fewer samples than model free methods on a diverse set of low-to-medium dimensional control tasks in both the open-loop and closed-loop control settings. Viraj Mehta, Ian Char, Joseph Abbate, Rory Conlin, Mark D. Boyer, Stefano Ermon, Jeff G. Schneider, Willie Neiswanger |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2021 | Beyond Pinball Loss: Quantile Methods for Calibrated Uncertainty QuantificationabstractAmong the many ways of quantifying uncertainty in a regression setting, specifying the full quantile function is attractive, as quantiles are amenable to interpretation and evaluation. A model that predicts the true conditional quantiles for each input, at all quantile levels, presents a correct and efficient representation of the underlying uncertainty. To achieve this, many current quantile-based methods focus on optimizing the pinball loss. However, this loss restricts the scope of applicable regression models, limits the ability to target many desirable properties (e.g. calibration, sharpness, centered intervals), and may produce poor conditional quantiles. In this work, we develop new quantile methods that address these shortcomings. In particular, we propose methods that can apply to any class of regression model, select an explicit balance between calibration and sharpness, optimize for calibration of centered intervals, and produce more accurate conditional quantiles. We provide a thorough experimental evaluation of our methods, which includes a high dimensional uncertainty quantification task in nuclear fusion. Youngseog Chung, Willie Neiswanger, Ian Char, Jeff G. Schneider |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2019 | Offline Contextual Bayesian OptimizationabstractIn black-box optimization, an agent repeatedly chooses a configuration to test, so as to find an optimal configuration. In many practical problems of interest, one would like to optimize several systems, or tasks'', simultaneously; however, in most of these scenarios the current task is determined by nature. In this work, we explore theoffline'' case in which one is able to bypass nature and choose the next task to evaluate (e.g. via a simulator). Because some tasks may be easier to optimize and others may be more critical, it is crucial to leverage algorithms that not only consider which configurations to try next, but also which tasks to make evaluations for. In this work, we describe a theoretically grounded Bayesian optimization method to tackle this problem. We also demonstrate that if the model of the reward structure does a poor job of capturing variation in difficulty between tasks, then algorithms that actively pick tasks for evaluation may end up doing more harm than good. Following this, we show how our approach can be used for real world applications in science and engineering, including optimizing tokamak controls for nuclear fusion. Ian Char, Youngseog Chung, Willie Neiswanger, Kirthevasan Kandasamy, Oak Nelson, Mark D. Boyer, Egemen Kolemen |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2014 | Toward a non-intrusive, physio- behavioral biometric for smartphonesabstractBiometric authentication relies on an individual's inner characteristics and traits. We propose an active authentication system on a mobile device that relies on two biometric modalities: 3D gestures and face recognition. The novelty of our approach is to combine 3D gesture and face recognition in a nonintrusive and unconstrained environment; the active authentication system is running in the background while the user is performing his/her main task. Esther Vasiete, Yan Chen 0033, Ian Char, Tom Yeh, Vishal M. Patel, Larry Davis 0001, Rama Chellappa |
Mobile HCI | 3 |