Horia Mania

dblp:166/1154 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
9ranked-venue papers
4as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 9 · 4 first-author · 2 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
8 papers
Motion planning and robot control · 30% Reinforcement learning · 26% Learning theory · 11%
Theoretical computer science
5 papers
Mathematical optimization · 48% Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 34% Computational complexity · 12%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Performance modeling and evaluation · 100%

Topics — the 21 heaviest of 24, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › robot control › optimal control
linear quadratic regulator
0.722019
Certainty Equivalence is Efficient for Linear Quadratic Control · NeurIPS 2019
Regret Bounds for Robust Adaptive Control of the Linear Quadratic Regulator · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
active learning
0.612022
Active Learning for Nonlinear System Identification with Guarantees · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2022
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › system identification
nonlinear system identification
0.612022
Active Learning for Nonlinear System Identification with Guarantees · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2022
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › market design
matching markets
0.512021
Bandit Learning in Decentralized Matching Markets · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2021
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
image classification
0.412020
Evaluating Machine Accuracy on ImageNet · ICML 2020
Performance modeling and evaluation
benchmarking
0.412020
Evaluating Machine Accuracy on ImageNet · ICML 2020
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › model-based reinforcement learning
certainty equivalence
0.412019
Certainty Equivalence is Efficient for Linear Quadratic Control · NeurIPS 2019
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization bounds
0.412019
Model Similarity Mitigates Test Set Overuse · NeurIPS 2019
Mathematical optimization › control theory
optimal control
0.412019
Certainty Equivalence is Efficient for Linear Quadratic Control · NeurIPS 2019
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › robot control
adaptive control
0.312018
Regret Bounds for Robust Adaptive Control of the Linear Quadratic Regulator · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
continuous control
0.312018
Simple random search of static linear policies is competitive for reinforcement learning · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Time series and sequential data
linear dynamical systems
0.312018
Learning Without Mixing: Towards A Sharp Analysis of Linear System Identification · COLT 2018
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
policy search
0.312018
Simple random search of static linear policies is competitive for reinforcement learning · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › black-box optimization
random search
0.312018
Simple random search of static linear policies is competitive for reinforcement learning · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning
regret bounds
0.312018
Regret Bounds for Robust Adaptive Control of the Linear Quadratic Regulator · NeurIPS 2018
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
system identification
0.312018
Learning Without Mixing: Towards A Sharp Analysis of Linear System Identification · COLT 2018
Computational complexity › learning theory
sample complexity
0.212022
Active Learning for Nonlinear System Identification with Guarantees · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2022
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › bandit
bandit learning
0.112021
Bandit Learning in Decentralized Matching Markets · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2021
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
multi-armed bandit
0.112021
Bandit Learning in Decentralized Matching Markets · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2021
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model evaluation
human-model comparison
0.112020
Evaluating Machine Accuracy on ImageNet · ICML 2020
Automated reasoning and model checking › controller synthesis
robust controller synthesis
0.112018
Regret Bounds for Robust Adaptive Control of the Linear Quadratic Regulator · NeurIPS 2018

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

trajectory tracking · 1.1trajectory planning · 1.1active learning · 1.1multi-armed bandit algorithms · 1.0incentive compatibility · 1.0human evaluation · 0.9riccati equation · 0.8perturbation bounds · 0.8non-asymptotic generalization bound · 0.4small-ball method · 0.3mixing time analysis · 0.3minimax lower bounds · 0.3minimax lower bound · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Active Learning for Nonlinear System Identification with Guarantees
abstract
While the identification of nonlinear dynamical systems is a fundamental building block of model-based reinforcement learning and feedback control, its sample complexity is only understood for systems that either have discrete states and actions or for systems that can be identified from data generated by i.i.d. random inputs. Nonetheless, many interesting dynamical systems have continuous states and actions and can only be identified through a judicious choice of inputs. Motivated by practical settings, we study a class of nonlinear dynamical systems whose state transitions depend linearly on a known feature embedding of state-action pairs. To estimate such systems in finite time identification methods must explore all directions in feature space. We propose an active learning approach that achieves this by repeating three steps: trajectory planning, trajectory tracking, and re-estimation of the system from all available data. We show that our method estimates nonlinear dynamical systems at a parametric rate, similar to the statistical rate of standard linear regression.
Horia Mania, Michael I. Jordan, Benjamin Recht
J. Mach. Learn. Res.1
2021 Bandit Learning in Decentralized Matching Markets
abstract
We study two-sided matching markets in which one side of the market (the players) does not have a priori knowledge about its preferences for the other side (the arms) and is required to learn its preferences from experience. Also, we assume the players have no direct means of communication. This model extends the standard stochastic multi-armed bandit framework to a decentralized multiple player setting with competition. We introduce a new algorithm for this setting that, over a time horizon $T$, attains $\mathcal{O}(\log(T))$ stable regret when preferences of the arms over players are shared, and $\mathcal{O}(\log(T)^2)$ regret when there are no assumptions on the preferences on either side. Moreover, in the setting where a single player may deviate, we show that the algorithm is incentive-compatible whenever the arms' preferences are shared, but not necessarily so when preferences are fully general.
Lydia T. Liu, Feng Ruan, Horia Mania, Michael I. Jordan
J. Mach. Learn. Res.3
2020 Competing Bandits in Matching Markets
abstract
Stable matching, a classical model for two-sided markets, has long been studied assuming known preferences. In reality agents often have to learn about their preferences through exploration. With the advent of massive online markets powered by data-driven matching platforms, it has become necessary to better understand the interplay between learning and market objectives. We propose a statistical learning model in which one side of the market does not have a priori knowledge about its preferences for the other side and is required to learn these from stochastic rewards. Our model extends the standard multi-armed bandits framework to multiple players, with the added feature that arms have preferences over players. We study both centralized and decentralized approaches to this problem and show surprising exploration-exploitation trade-offs compared to the single player multi-armed bandits setting.
Lydia T. Liu, Horia Mania, Michael I. Jordan
AISTATS2
2020 Evaluating Machine Accuracy on ImageNet
abstract
We evaluate a wide range of ImageNet models with five trained human labelers. In our year-long experiment, trained humans first annotated 40,000 images from the ImageNet and ImageNetV2 test sets with multi-class labels to enable a semantically coherent evaluation. Then we measured the classification accuracy of the five trained humans on the full task with 1,000 classes. Only the latest models from 2020 are on par with our best human labeler, and human accuracy on the 590 object classes is still 4% and 10% higher than the best model on ImageNet and ImageNetV2, respectively. Moreover, humans achieve the same accuracy on ImageNet and ImageNetV2, while all models see a consistent accuracy drop. Overall, our results show that there is still substantial room for improvement on ImageNet and direct accuracy comparisons between humans and machines may overstate machine performance.
Vaishaal Shankar, Rebecca Roelofs, Horia Mania, Alex Fang, Benjamin Recht, Ludwig Schmidt
ICML3
2019 Model Similarity Mitigates Test Set Overuse
abstract
Excessive reuse of test data has become commonplace in today's machine learning workflows. Popular benchmarks, competitions, industrial scale tuning, among other applications, all involve test data reuse beyond guidance by statistical confidence bounds. Nonetheless, recent replication studies give evidence that popular benchmarks continue to support progress despite years of extensive reuse. We proffer a new explanation for the apparent longevity of test data: Many proposed models are similar in their predictions and we prove that this similarity mitigates overfitting. Specifically, we show empirically that models proposed for the ImageNet ILSVRC benchmark agree in their predictions well beyond what we can conclude from their accuracy levels alone. Likewise, models created by large scale hyperparameter search enjoy high levels of similarity. Motivated by these empirical observations, we give a non-asymptotic generalization bound that takes similarity into account, leading to meaningful confidence bounds in practical settings.
Horia Mania, John Miller 0001, Ludwig Schmidt, Moritz Hardt, Benjamin Recht
NeurIPS1
2019 Certainty Equivalence is Efficient for Linear Quadratic Control
abstract
We study the performance of the certainty equivalent controller on Linear Quadratic (LQ) control problems with unknown transition dynamics. We show that for both the fully and partially observed settings, the sub-optimality gap between the cost incurred by playing the certainty equivalent controller on the true system and the cost incurred by using the optimal LQ controller enjoys a fast statistical rate, scaling as the square of the parameter error. To the best of our knowledge, our result is the first sub-optimality guarantee in the partially observed Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG) setting. Furthermore, in the fully observed Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR), our result improves upon recent work by Dean et al., who present an algorithm achieving a sub-optimality gap linear in the parameter error. A key part of our analysis relies on perturbation bounds for discrete Riccati equations. We provide two new perturbation bounds, one that expands on an existing result from Konstantinov, and another based on a new elementary proof strategy.
Horia Mania, Stephen Tu, Benjamin Recht
NeurIPS1
2018 Learning Without Mixing: Towards A Sharp Analysis of Linear System Identification
abstract
We prove that the ordinary least-squares (OLS) estimator attains nearly minimax optimal performance for the identification of linear dynamical systems from a single observed trajectory. Our upper bound relies on a generalization of Mendelson’s small-ball method to dependent data, eschewing the use of standard mixing-time arguments. Our lower bounds reveal that these upper bounds match up to logarithmic factors. In particular, we capture the correct signal-to-noise behavior of the problem, showing that \emph{more unstable} linear systems are \emph{easier} to estimate. This behavior is qualitatively different from arguments which rely on mixing-time calculations that suggest that unstable systems are more difficult to estimate. We generalize our technique to provide bounds for a more general class of linear response time-series.
Max Simchowitz, Horia Mania, Stephen Tu, Michael I. Jordan, Benjamin Recht
COLT2
2018 Regret Bounds for Robust Adaptive Control of the Linear Quadratic Regulator
abstract
We consider adaptive control of the Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR), where an unknown linear system is controlled subject to quadratic costs. Leveraging recent developments in the estimation of linear systems and in robust controller synthesis, we present the first provably polynomial time algorithm that achieves sub-linear regret on this problem. We further study the interplay between regret minimization and parameter estimation by proving a lower bound on the expected regret in terms of the exploration schedule used by any algorithm. Finally, we conduct a numerical study comparing our robust adaptive algorithm to other methods from the adaptive LQR literature, and demonstrate the flexibility of our proposed method by extending it to a demand forecasting problem subject to state constraints.
Sarah Dean, Horia Mania, Nikolai Matni, Benjamin Recht, Stephen Tu
NeurIPS2
2018 Simple random search of static linear policies is competitive for reinforcement learning
abstract
Model-free reinforcement learning aims to offer off-the-shelf solutions for controlling dynamical systems without requiring models of the system dynamics. We introduce a model-free random search algorithm for training static, linear policies for continuous control problems. Common evaluation methodology shows that our method matches state-of-the-art sample efficiency on the benchmark MuJoCo locomotion tasks. Nonetheless, more rigorous evaluation reveals that the assessment of performance on these benchmarks is optimistic. We evaluate the performance of our method over hundreds of random seeds and many different hyperparameter configurations for each benchmark task. This extensive evaluation is possible because of the small computational footprint of our method. Our simulations highlight a high variability in performance in these benchmark tasks, indicating that commonly used estimations of sample efficiency do not adequately evaluate the performance of RL algorithms. Our results stress the need for new baselines, benchmarks and evaluation methodology for RL algorithms.
Horia Mania, Aurelia Guy, Benjamin Recht
NeurIPS1