Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Raksha Kumaraswamy
dblp:162/7061
· DBLP profile ↗
8ranked-venue papers
2as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0002-0784-4471ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 8 · 2 first-author · 3 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-authorTheory 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
7 papers |
Reinforcement learning · 69% Representation and self-supervised learning · 20% Learning paradigms · 6% |
Topics — the 18 heaviest of 20, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
transfer learning in reinforcement learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Investigating the properties of neural network representations in reinforcement learning · Artif. Intell. 2024 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › unsupervised representation learning
sparse coding |
0.7 | 2 | 2019 | The Utility of Sparse Representations for Control in Reinforcement Learning · AAAI 2019 Learning Sparse Representations in Reinforcement Learning with Sparse Coding · IJCAI 2017 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › actor-critic methods
off-policy actor-critic |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Off-Policy Actor-Critic with Emphatic Weightings · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
off-policy evaluation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Off-Policy Actor-Critic with Emphatic Weightings · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › policy optimization
policy gradient |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Off-Policy Actor-Critic with Emphatic Weightings · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › multi-task learning
auxiliary task learning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Continual Auxiliary Task Learning · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › function approximation › representation learning for reinforcement learning
successor features |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Continual Auxiliary Task Learning · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
representation learning for control |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | The Utility of Sparse Representations for Control in Reinforcement Learning · AAAI 2019 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › exploration
directed exploration |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Context-dependent upper-confidence bounds for directed exploration · NeurIPS 2018 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
exploration |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Context-dependent upper-confidence bounds for directed exploration · NeurIPS 2018 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › temporal difference learning
least-squares temporal difference |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Context-dependent upper-confidence bounds for directed exploration · NeurIPS 2018 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
value-based reinforcement learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Context-dependent upper-confidence bounds for directed exploration · NeurIPS 2018 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › function approximation
representation learning for reinforcement learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Learning Sparse Representations in Reinforcement Learning with Sparse Coding · IJCAI 2017 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
cross-domain transfer |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Transfer Learning via Relational Type Matching · ICDM 2015 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › probabilistic reasoning
probabilistic logic |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Transfer Learning via Relational Type Matching · ICDM 2015 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning
neural network representation learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | The Utility of Sparse Representations for Control in Reinforcement Learning · AAAI 2019 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › bandit
upper confidence bound |
0.1 | 1 | 2018 | Context-dependent upper-confidence bounds for directed exploration · NeurIPS 2018 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
policy evaluation |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Learning Sparse Representations in Reinforcement Learning with Sparse Coding · IJCAI 2017 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
deep q-learning · 0.8auxiliary loss · 0.8variance reduction · 0.7interest functions · 0.7emphatic weighting · 0.7successor features · 0.5off-policy learning · 0.5sparse coding · 0.4distributional regularizer · 0.4least-squares temporal difference · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Investigating the properties of neural network representations in reinforcement learningabstractIn this paper we investigate the properties of representations learned by deep reinforcement learning systems. Much of the early work on representations for reinforcement learning focused on designing fixed-basis architectures to achieve properties thought to be desirable, such as orthogonality and sparsity. In contrast, the idea behind deep reinforcement learning methods is that the agent designer should not encode representational properties, but rather that the data stream should determine the properties of the representation—good representations emerge under appropriate training schemes. In this paper we bring these two perspectives together, empirically investigating the properties of representations that support transfer in reinforcement learning. We introduce and measure six representational properties over more than 25,000 agent-task settings. We consider Deep Q-learning agents with different auxiliary losses in a pixel-based navigation environment, with source and transfer tasks corresponding to different goal locations. We develop a method to better understand why some representations work better for transfer, through a systematic approach varying task similarity and measuring and correlating representation properties with transfer performance. We demonstrate the generality of the methodology by investigating representations learned by a Rainbow agent that successfully transfers across Atari 2600 game modes. Han Wang 0066, Erfan Miahi, Martha White, Marlos C. Machado, Zaheer Abbas, Raksha Kumaraswamy, Adam White 0001 |
Artif. Intell. | 6 |
| 2023 | Off-Policy Actor-Critic with Emphatic WeightingsabstractA variety of theoretically-sound policy gradient algorithms exist for the on-policy setting due to the policy gradient theorem, which provides a simplified form for the gradient. The off-policy setting, however, has been less clear due to the existence of multiple objectives and the lack of an explicit off-policy policy gradient theorem. In this work, we unify these objectives into one off-policy objective, and provide a policy gradient theorem for this unified objective. The derivation involves emphatic weightings and interest functions. We show multiple strategies to approximate the gradients, in an algorithm called Actor Critic with Emphatic weightings (ACE). We prove in a counterexample that previous (semi-gradient) off-policy actor-critic methods—particularly Off-Policy Actor-Critic (OffPAC) and Deterministic Policy Gradient (DPG)—converge to the wrong solution whereas ACE finds the optimal solution. We also highlight why these semi-gradient approaches can still perform well in practice, suggesting strategies for variance reduction in ACE. We empirically study several variants of ACE on two classic control environments and an image-based environment designed to illustrate the tradeoffs made by each gradient approximation. We find that by approximating the emphatic weightings directly, ACE performs as well as or better than OffPAC in all settings tested. Eric Graves 0002, Ehsan Imani, Raksha Kumaraswamy, Martha White |
J. Mach. Learn. Res. | 3 |
| 2021 | Continual Auxiliary Task LearningabstractLearning auxiliary tasks, such as multiple predictions about the world, can provide many benefits to reinforcement learning systems. A variety of off-policy learning algorithms have been developed to learn such predictions, but as yet there is little work on how to adapt the behavior to gather useful data for those off-policy predictions. In this work, we investigate a reinforcement learning system designed to learn a collection of auxiliary tasks, with a behavior policy learning to take actions to improve those auxiliary predictions. We highlight the inherent non-stationarity in this continual auxiliary task learning problem, for both prediction learners and the behavior learner. We develop an algorithm based on successor features that facilitates tracking under non-stationary rewards, and prove the separation into learning successor features and rewards provides convergence rate improvements. We conduct an in-depth study into the resulting multi-prediction learning system. Matthew McLeod, Chunlok Lo, Matthew Schlegel, Andrew Jacobsen, Raksha Kumaraswamy, Martha White, Adam White 0001 |
NeurIPS | 5 |
| 2019 | The Utility of Sparse Representations for Control in Reinforcement LearningabstractWe investigate sparse representations for control in reinforcement learning. While these representations are widely used in computer vision, their prevalence in reinforcement learning is limited to sparse coding where extracting representations for new data can be computationally intensive. Here, we begin by demonstrating that learning a control policy incrementally with a representation from a standard neural network fails in classic control domains, whereas learning with a representation obtained from a neural network that has sparsity properties enforced is effective. We provide evidence that the reason for this is that the sparse representation provides locality, and so avoids catastrophic interference, and particularly keeps consistent, stable values for bootstrapping. We then discuss how to learn such sparse representations. We explore the idea of Distributional Regularizers, where the activation of hidden nodes is encouraged to match a particular distribution that results in sparse activation across time. We identify a simple but effective way to obtain sparse representations, not afforded by previously proposed strategies, making it more practical for further investigation into sparse representations for reinforcement learning. Raksha Kumaraswamy, Lei Le, Martha White |
AAAI | 2 |
| 2018 | Context-dependent upper-confidence bounds for directed explorationabstractDirected exploration strategies for reinforcement learning are critical for learning an optimal policy in a minimal number of interactions with the environment. Many algorithms use optimism to direct exploration, either through visitation estimates or upper confidence bounds, as opposed to data-inefficient strategies like e-greedy that use random, undirected exploration. Most data-efficient exploration methods require significant computation, typically relying on a learned model to guide exploration. Least-squares methods have the potential to provide some of the data-efficiency benefits of model-based approaches—because they summarize past interactions—with the computation closer to that of model-free approaches. In this work, we provide a novel, computationally efficient, incremental exploration strategy, leveraging this property of least-squares temporal difference learning (LSTD). We derive upper confidence bounds on the action-values learned by LSTD, with context-dependent (or state-dependent) noise variance. Such context-dependent noise focuses exploration on a subset of variable states, and allows for reduced exploration in other states. We empirically demonstrate that our algorithm can converge more quickly than other incremental exploration strategies using confidence estimates on action-values. Raksha Kumaraswamy, Matthew Schlegel, Adam White 0001, Martha White |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2017 | Learning Sparse Representations in Reinforcement Learning with Sparse CodingabstractA variety of representation learning approaches have been investigated for reinforcement learning; much less attention, however, has been given to investigating the utility of sparse coding. Outside of reinforcement learning, sparse coding representations have been widely used, with non-convex objectives that result in discriminative representations. In this work, we develop a supervised sparse coding objective for policy evaluation. Despite the non-convexity of this objective, we prove that all local minima are global minima, making the approach amenable to simple optimization strategies. We empirically show that it is key to use a supervised objective, rather than the more straightforward unsupervised sparse coding approach. We then compare the learned representations to a canonical fixed sparse representation, called tile-coding, demonstrating that the sparse coding representation outperforms a wide variety of tile-coding representations. Lei Le, Raksha Kumaraswamy, Martha White |
IJCAI | 2 |
| 2016 | Learning Through Advice-Seeking via Transfer
Phillip Odom, Raksha Kumaraswamy, Kristian Kersting, Sriraam Natarajan |
ILP | 2 |
| 2015 | Transfer Learning via Relational Type MatchingabstractTransfer learning is typically performed between problem instances within the same domain. We consider the problem of transferring across domains. To this effect, we adopt a probabilistic logic approach. First, our approach automatically identifies predicates in the target domain that are similar in their relational structure to predicates in the source domain. Second, it transfers the logic rules and learns the parameters of the transferred rules using target data. Finally, it refines the rules as necessary using theory refinement. Our experimental evidence supports that this transfer method finds models as good or better than those found with state-of-the-art methods, with and without transfer, and in a fraction of the time. Raksha Kumaraswamy, Phillip Odom, Kristian Kersting, David B. Leake, Sriraam Natarajan |
ICDM | 1 |