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

Hartmut Maennel

dblp:217/3657 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 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
3 papers
Deep learning architectures and training · 41% Trustworthy machine learning · 33% Reinforcement learning · 23%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
training dynamics
0.922021
Deep Learning Through the Lens of Example Difficulty · NeurIPS 2021
What Do Neural Networks Learn When Trained With Random Labels? · NeurIPS 2020
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › Data-centric AI
example difficulty
0.512021
Deep Learning Through the Lens of Example Difficulty · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.512021
Deep Learning Through the Lens of Example Difficulty · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
pretraining effects
0.412020
What Do Neural Networks Learn When Trained With Random Labels? · NeurIPS 2020
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
policy evaluation
0.412019
Adaptive Temporal-Difference Learning for Policy Evaluation with Per-State Uncertainty Estimates · NeurIPS 2019
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
temporal difference learning
0.412019
Adaptive Temporal-Difference Learning for Policy Evaluation with Per-State Uncertainty Estimates · NeurIPS 2019
Machine learning › Learning theory › statistical estimation › confidence set construction
confidence intervals
0.112019
Adaptive Temporal-Difference Learning for Policy Evaluation with Per-State Uncertainty Estimates · NeurIPS 2019
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation
0.112019
Adaptive Temporal-Difference Learning for Policy Evaluation with Per-State Uncertainty Estimates · NeurIPS 2019

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

uncertainty analysis · 0.5prediction depth measurement · 0.5principal component analysis · 0.4fine-tuning · 0.4temporal difference learning · 0.4monte carlo · 0.4confidence intervals · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Deep Learning Through the Lens of Example Difficulty
abstract
Existing work on understanding deep learning often employs measures that compress all data-dependent information into a few numbers. In this work, we adopt a perspective based on the role of individual examples. We introduce a measure of the computational difficulty of making a prediction for a given input: the (effective) prediction depth. Our extensive investigation reveals surprising yet simple relationships between the prediction depth of a given input and the model’s uncertainty, confidence, accuracy and speed of learning for that data point. We further categorize difficult examples into three interpretable groups, demonstrate how these groups are processed differently inside deep models and showcase how this understanding allows us to improve prediction accuracy. Insights from our study lead to a coherent view of a number of separately reported phenomena in the literature: early layers generalize while later layers memorize; early layers converge faster and networks learn easy data and simple functions first.
Robert J. N. Baldock, Hartmut Maennel, Behnam Neyshabur
NeurIPS2
2020 What Do Neural Networks Learn When Trained With Random Labels?
abstract
We study deep neural networks (DNNs) trained on natural image data with entirely random labels. Despite its popularity in the literature, where it is often used to study memorization, generalization, and other phenomena, little is known about what DNNs learn in this setting. In this paper, we show analytically for convolutional and fully connected networks that an alignment between the principal components of network parameters and data takes place when training with random labels. We study this alignment effect by investigating neural networks pre-trained on randomly labelled image data and subsequently fine-tuned on disjoint datasets with random or real labels. We show how this alignment produces a positive transfer: networks pre-trained with random labels train faster downstream compared to training from scratch even after accounting for simple effects, such as weight scaling. We analyze how competing effects, such as specialization at later layers, may hide the positive transfer. These effects are studied in several network architectures, including VGG16 and ResNet18, on CIFAR10 and ImageNet.
Hartmut Maennel, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Ilya O. Tolstikhin, Robert J. N. Baldock, Olivier Bousquet, Sylvain Gelly, Daniel Keysers
NeurIPS1
2019 Adaptive Temporal-Difference Learning for Policy Evaluation with Per-State Uncertainty Estimates
abstract
We consider the core reinforcement-learning problem of on-policy value function approximation from a batch of trajectory data, and focus on various issues of Temporal Difference (TD) learning and Monte Carlo (MC) policy evaluation. The two methods are known to achieve complementary bias-variance trade-off properties, with TD tending to achieve lower variance but potentially higher bias. In this paper, we argue that the larger bias of TD can be a result of the amplification of local approximation errors. We address this by proposing an algorithm that adaptively switches between TD and MC in each state, thus mitigating the propagation of errors. Our method is based on learned confidence intervals that detect biases of TD estimates. We demonstrate in a variety of policy evaluation tasks that this simple adaptive algorithm performs competitively with the best approach in hindsight, suggesting that learned confidence intervals are a powerful technique for adapting policy evaluation to use TD or MC returns in a data-driven way.
Carlos Riquelme, Hugo Penedones, Damien Vincent, Hartmut Maennel, Sylvain Gelly, Timothy A. Mann, André Barreto 0001, Gergely Neu
NeurIPS4