Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Michael Janner
dblp:209/4967
· DBLP profile ↗
11ranked-venue papers
6as 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 · 11 · 6 first-author · 6 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging 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
10 papers |
Reinforcement learning · 44% Generative modeling · 21% Motion planning and robot control · 11% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Computational photography and imaging · 100% |
Topics — the 21 heaviest of 24, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-based reinforcement learning |
2.0 | 4 | 2023 | Efficient Planning in a Compact Latent Action Space · ICLR 2023 Planning with Diffusion for Flexible Behavior Synthesis · ICML 2022 Gamma-Models: Generative Temporal Difference Learning for Infinite-Horizon Prediction · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
diffusion model |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | Training Diffusion Models with Reinforcement Learning · ICLR 2024 Planning with Diffusion for Flexible Behavior Synthesis · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › policy optimization
diffusion policy optimization |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Training Diffusion Models with Reinforcement Learning · ICLR 2024 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
humanoid robot control |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | H-GAP: Humanoid Control with a Generalist Planner · ICLR 2024 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › robot control
model predictive control |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | H-GAP: Humanoid Control with a Generalist Planner · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › policy optimization
policy gradient |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Training Diffusion Models with Reinforcement Learning · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
offline reinforcement learning |
0.7 | 2 | 2024 | Offline Reinforcement Learning as One Big Sequence Modeling Problem · NeurIPS 2021 H-GAP: Humanoid Control with a Generalist Planner · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling › diffusion model
diffusion planning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Planning with Diffusion for Flexible Behavior Synthesis · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
safe reinforcement learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Lyapunov Density Models: Constraining Distribution Shift in Learning-Based Control · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling › diffusion model › diffusion planning
trajectory diffusion |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Planning with Diffusion for Flexible Behavior Synthesis · ICML 2022 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
sequence modeling |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Offline Reinforcement Learning as One Big Sequence Modeling Problem · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning
sequence prediction |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Offline Reinforcement Learning as One Big Sequence Modeling Problem · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
transformer |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Offline Reinforcement Learning as One Big Sequence Modeling Problem · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
generative model |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Gamma-Models: Generative Temporal Difference Learning for Infinite-Horizon Prediction · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
temporal difference learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Gamma-Models: Generative Temporal Difference Learning for Infinite-Horizon Prediction · NeurIPS 2020 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › exploration
exploration-exploitation tradeoff |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | When to Trust Your Model: Model-Based Policy Optimization · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization
model generalization |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | When to Trust Your Model: Model-Based Policy Optimization · NeurIPS 2019 |
Robotics › Robot manipulation › physical interaction
physical interaction reasoning |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Reasoning About Physical Interactions with Object-Oriented Prediction and Planning · ICLR (Poster) 2019 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
policy optimization |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | When to Trust Your Model: Model-Based Policy Optimization · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › unsupervised representation learning › self-supervised representation learning
reconstruction-based learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Self-Supervised Intrinsic Image Decomposition · NIPS 2017 |
Computational photography and imaging
intrinsic image decomposition |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Self-Supervised Intrinsic Image Decomposition · NIPS 2017 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
reinforcement learning · 0.8policy gradient · 0.8model predictive control · 0.8generative trajectory model · 0.8diffusion model · 0.8autoencoding planner · 0.8latent variable model · 0.7action sequence compression · 0.7image inpainting · 0.6classifier-guided sampling · 0.6shading model · 0.3knowledge transfer · 0.3image decomposition · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Training Diffusion Models with Reinforcement LearningabstractDiffusion models are a class of flexible generative models trained with an approximation to the log-likelihood objective. However, most use cases of diffusion models are not concerned with likelihoods, but instead with downstream objectives such as human-perceived image quality or drug effectiveness. In this paper, we investigate reinforcement learning methods for directly optimizing diffusion models for such objectives. We describe how posing denoising as a multi-step decision-making problem enables a class of policy gradient algorithms, which we refer to as denoising diffusion policy optimization ( DDPO), that are more effective than alternative reward-weighted likelihood approaches. Empirically, DDPO can adapt text-to-image diffusion models to objectives that are difficult to express via prompting, such as image compressibility, and those derived from human feedback, such as aesthetic quality. Finally, we show that DDPO can improve prompt-image alignment using feedback from a vision-language model without the need for additional data collection or human annotation. The project’s website can be found at http://rl-diffusion.github.io. Kevin Black, Michael Janner, Yilun Du, Ilya Kostrikov, Sergey Levine |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2024 | H-GAP: Humanoid Control with a Generalist PlannerabstractHumanoid control is an important research challenge offering avenues for integration into human-centric infrastructures and enabling physics-driven humanoid animations.
The daunting challenges in this field stem from the difficulty of optimizing in high-dimensional action spaces and the instability introduced by the bipedal morphology of humanoids.
However, the extensive collection of human motion-captured data and the derived datasets of humanoid trajectories, such as MoCapAct, paves the way to tackle these challenges. In this context, we present Humanoid Generalist Autoencoding Planner (H-GAP), a state-action trajectory generative model trained on humanoid trajectories derived from human motion-captured data, capable of adeptly handling downstream control tasks with Model Predictive Control (MPC).
For 56 degrees of freedom humanoid, we empirically demonstrate that H-GAP learns to represent and generate a wide range of motor behaviors. Further, without any learning from online interactions, it can also flexibly transfer these behaviours to solve novel downstream control tasks via planning. Notably, H-GAP excels established MPC baselines with access to the ground truth model, and is superior or comparable to offline RL methods trained for individual tasks.
Finally, we do a series of empirical studies on the scaling properties of H-GAP, showing the potential for performance gains via additional data but not computing. Zhengyao Jiang, Yingchen Xu, Nolan Wagener, Yicheng Luo, Michael Janner, Edward Grefenstette, Tim Rocktäschel, Yuandong Tian |
ICLR | 5 |
| 2023 | Efficient Planning in a Compact Latent Action Space
Zhengyao Jiang, Tianjun Zhang, Michael Janner, Tim Rocktäschel, Edward Grefenstette, Yuandong Tian |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2022 | Planning with Diffusion for Flexible Behavior SynthesisabstractModel-based reinforcement learning methods often use learning only for the purpose of recovering an approximate dynamics model, offloading the rest of the decision-making work to classical trajectory optimizers. While conceptually simple, this combination has a number of empirical shortcomings, suggesting that learned models may not be well-suited to standard trajectory optimization. In this paper, we consider what it would look like to fold as much of the trajectory optimization pipeline as possible into the modeling problem, such that sampling from the model and planning with it become nearly identical. The core of our technical approach lies in a diffusion probabilistic model that plans by iteratively denoising trajectories. We show how classifier-guided sampling and image inpainting can be reinterpreted as coherent planning strategies, explore the unusual and useful properties of diffusion-based planning methods, and demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in control settings that emphasize long-horizon decision-making and test-time flexibility. Michael Janner, Yilun Du, Josh Tenenbaum, Sergey Levine |
ICML | 1 |
| 2022 | Lyapunov Density Models: Constraining Distribution Shift in Learning-Based ControlabstractLearned models and policies can generalize effectively when evaluated within the distribution of the training data, but can produce unpredictable and erroneous outputs on out-of-distribution inputs. In order to avoid distribution shift when deploying learning-based control algorithms, we seek a mechanism to constrain the agent to states and actions that resemble those that the method was trained on. In control theory, Lyapunov stability and control-invariant sets allow us to make guarantees about controllers that stabilize the system around specific states, while in machine learning, density models allow us to estimate the training data distribution. Can we combine these two concepts, producing learning-based control algorithms that constrain the system to in-distribution states using only in-distribution actions? In this paper, we propose to do this by combining concepts from Lyapunov stability and density estimation, introducing Lyapunov density models: a generalization of control Lyapunov functions and density models that provides guarantees about an agent’s ability to stay in-distribution over its entire trajectory. Katie Kang, Paula Gradu, Jason J. Choi, Michael Janner, Claire J. Tomlin, Sergey Levine |
ICML | 4 |
| 2021 | Offline Reinforcement Learning as One Big Sequence Modeling ProblemabstractReinforcement learning (RL) is typically viewed as the problem of estimating single-step policies (for model-free RL) or single-step models (for model-based RL), leveraging the Markov property to factorize the problem in time. However, we can also view RL as a sequence modeling problem: predict a sequence of actions that leads to a sequence of high rewards. Viewed in this way, it is tempting to consider whether powerful, high-capacity sequence prediction models that work well in other supervised learning domains, such as natural-language processing, can also provide simple and effective solutions to the RL problem. To this end, we explore how RL can be reframed as "one big sequence modeling" problem, using state-of-the-art Transformer architectures to model distributions over sequences of states, actions, and rewards. Addressing RL as a sequence modeling problem significantly simplifies a range of design decisions: we no longer require separate behavior policy constraints, as is common in prior work on offline model-free RL, and we no longer require ensembles or other epistemic uncertainty estimators, as is common in prior work on model-based RL. All of these roles are filled by the same Transformer sequence model. In our experiments, we demonstrate the flexibility of this approach across imitation learning, goal-conditioned RL, and offline RL. Michael Janner, Qiyang Li, Sergey Levine |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2020 | Gamma-Models: Generative Temporal Difference Learning for Infinite-Horizon PredictionabstractWe introduce the gamma-model, a predictive model of environment dynamics with an infinite, probabilistic horizon. Replacing standard single-step models with gamma-models leads to generalizations of the procedures that form the foundation of model-based control, including the model rollout and model-based value estimation. The gamma-model, trained with a generative reinterpretation of temporal difference learning, is a natural continuous analogue of the successor representation and a hybrid between model-free and model-based mechanisms. Like a value function, it contains information about the long-term future; like a standard predictive model, it is independent of task reward. We instantiate the gamma-model as both a generative adversarial network and normalizing flow, discuss how its training reflects an inescapable tradeoff between training-time and testing-time compounding errors, and empirically investigate its utility for prediction and control. Michael Janner, Igor Mordatch, Sergey Levine |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2019 | Reasoning About Physical Interactions with Object-Oriented Prediction and Planning
Michael Janner, Sergey Levine, William T. Freeman, Josh Tenenbaum, Chelsea Finn, Jiajun Wu 0001 |
ICLR (Poster) | 1 |
| 2019 | When to Trust Your Model: Model-Based Policy OptimizationabstractDesigning effective model-based reinforcement learning algorithms is difficult because the ease of data generation must be weighed against the bias of model-generated data. In this paper, we study the role of model usage in policy optimization both theoretically and empirically. We first formulate and analyze a model-based reinforcement learning algorithm with a guarantee of monotonic improvement at each step. In practice, this analysis is overly pessimistic and suggests that real off-policy data is always preferable to model-generated on-policy data, but we show that an empirical estimate of model generalization can be incorporated into such analysis to justify model usage. Motivated by this analysis, we then demonstrate that a simple procedure of using short model-generated rollouts branched from real data has the benefits of more complicated model-based algorithms without the usual pitfalls. In particular, this approach surpasses the sample efficiency of prior model-based methods, matches the asymptotic performance of the best model-free algorithms, and scales to horizons that cause other model-based methods to fail entirely. Michael Janner, Justin Fu, Marvin Zhang, Sergey Levine |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2017 | Causal and compositional generative models in online perception
Ilker Yildirim, Michael Janner, Mario Belledonne, Christian Wallraven, Winrich Freiwald, Josh Tenenbaum |
CogSci | 2 |
| 2017 | Self-Supervised Intrinsic Image DecompositionabstractIntrinsic decomposition from a single image is a highly challenging task, due to its inherent ambiguity and the scarcity of training data. In contrast to traditional fully supervised learning approaches, in this paper we propose learning intrinsic image decomposition by explaining the input image. Our model, the Rendered Intrinsics Network (RIN), joins together an image decomposition pipeline, which predicts reflectance, shape, and lighting conditions given a single image, with a recombination function, a learned shading model used to recompose the original input based off of intrinsic image predictions. Our network can then use unsupervised reconstruction error as an additional signal to improve its intermediate representations. This allows large-scale unlabeled data to be useful during training, and also enables transferring learned knowledge to images of unseen object categories, lighting conditions, and shapes. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method performs well on both intrinsic image decomposition and knowledge transfer. Michael Janner, Jiajun Wu 0001, Tejas D. Kulkarni, Ilker Yildirim, Josh Tenenbaum |
NIPS | 1 |