EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Riley Simmons-Edler
dblp:222/1920
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
4as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 4 first-author · 4 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author
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
4 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 45% Reinforcement learning · 40% Video understanding and tracking · 12% |
Topics — the 8 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
deep reinforcement learning |
1.0 | 2 | 2025 | Deep RL Needs Deep Behavior Analysis: Exploring Implicit Planning by Model-Free Agents in Open-Ended Environments · NeurIPS 2025 Reward Prediction Error as an Exploration Objective in Deep RL · IJCAI 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › AI governance
AI regulation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Military AI Needs Technically-Informed Regulation to Safeguard AI Research and its Applications · NeurIPS 2025 |
Computer vision › Video understanding and tracking › video analytics
behavior analysis |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Deep RL Needs Deep Behavior Analysis: Exploring Implicit Planning by Model-Free Agents in Open-Ended Environments · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-free reinforcement learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Deep RL Needs Deep Behavior Analysis: Exploring Implicit Planning by Model-Free Agents in Open-Ended Environments · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
societal impact of AI |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Position: AI-Powered Autonomous Weapons Risk Geopolitical Instability and Threaten AI Research · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
exploration |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Reward Prediction Error as an Exploration Objective in Deep RL · IJCAI 2020 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › exploration
intrinsic motivation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Reward Prediction Error as an Exploration Objective in Deep RL · IJCAI 2020 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
value-based reinforcement learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Reward Prediction Error as an Exploration Objective in Deep RL · IJCAI 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
policy analysis · 1.6neuroethology-inspired analysis · 0.9behavioral analysis · 0.9temporal difference learning · 0.4epsilon-greedy exploration · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Deep RL Needs Deep Behavior Analysis: Exploring Implicit Planning by Model-Free Agents in Open-Ended EnvironmentsabstractUnderstanding the behavior of deep reinforcement learning (DRL) agents—particularly as task and agent sophistication increase—requires more than simple comparison of reward curves, yet standard methods for behavioral analysis remain underdeveloped in DRL.
We apply tools from neuroscience and ethology to study DRL agents in a novel, complex, partially observable environment, ForageWorld, designed to capture key aspects of real-world animal foraging—including sparse, depleting resource patches, predator threats, and spatially extended arenas.
We use this environment as a platform for applying joint behavioral and neural analysis to agents, revealing detailed, quantitatively grounded insights into agent strategies, memory, and planning.
Contrary to common assumptions, we find that model-free RNN-based DRL agents can exhibit structured, planning-like behavior purely through emergent dynamics—without requiring explicit memory modules or world models.
Our results show that studying DRL agents like animals—analyzing them with neuroethology-inspired tools that reveal structure in both behavior and neural dynamics—uncovers rich structure in their learning dynamics that would otherwise remain invisible.
We distill these tools into a general analysis framework linking core behavioral and representational features to diagnostic methods, which can be reused for a wide range of tasks and agents.
As agents grow more complex and autonomous, bridging neuroscience, cognitive science, and AI will be essential—not just for understanding their behavior, but for ensuring safe alignment and maximizing desirable behaviors that are hard to measure via reward.
We show how this can be done by drawing on lessons from how biological intelligence is studied. Riley Simmons-Edler, Ryan Paul Badman, Felix Baastad Berg, Raymond Chua, John J. Vastola, Joshua Lunger, William Qian 0001, Kanaka Rajan |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2025 | Military AI Needs Technically-Informed Regulation to Safeguard AI Research and its ApplicationsabstractMilitary weapon systems and command-and-control infrastructure augmented by artificial intelligence (AI) have seen rapid development and deployment in recent years. However, the sociotechnical impacts of AI on combat systems, military decision-making, and the norms of warfare have been understudied. We focus on a specific subset of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) that use AI for targeting or battlefield decisions. We refer to this subset as AI-powered lethal autonomous weapon systems (AI-LAWS) and argue that they introduce novel risks—including unanticipated escalation, poor reliability in unfamiliar environments, and erosion of human oversight—all of which threaten both military effectiveness and the openness of AI research.These risks cannot be addressed by high-level policy alone; effective regulation must be grounded in the technical behavior of AI models. We argue that AI researchers must be involved throughout the regulatory lifecycle.Thus, we propose a clear, behavior-based definition of AI-LAWS—systems that introduce unique risks through their use of modern AI—as a foundation for technically grounded regulation, given that existing frameworks do not distinguish them from conventional LAWS.Using this definition, we propose several technically-informed policy directions and invite greater participation from the AI research community in military AI policy discussions. Riley Simmons-Edler, Jean Dong, Paul Lushenko, Kanaka Rajan, Ryan Paul Badman |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2024 | Position: AI-Powered Autonomous Weapons Risk Geopolitical Instability and Threaten AI ResearchabstractThe recent embrace of machine learning (ML) in the development of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) creates serious risks to geopolitical stability and the free exchange of ideas in AI research. This topic has received comparatively little attention of late compared to risks stemming from superintelligent artificial general intelligence (AGI), but requires fewer assumptions about the course of technological development and is thus a nearer-future issue. ML is already enabling the substitution of AWS for human soldiers in many battlefield roles, reducing the upfront human cost, and thus political cost, of waging offensive war. In the case of peer adversaries, this increases the likelihood of "low intensity" conflicts which risk escalation to broader warfare. In the case of non-peer adversaries, it reduces the domestic blowback to wars of aggression. This effect can occur regardless of other ethical issues around the use of military AI such as the risk of civilian casualties, and does not require any superhuman AI capabilities. Further, the military value of AWS raises the specter of an AI-powered arms race and the misguided imposition of national security restrictions on AI research. Our goal in this paper is to raise awareness among the public and ML researchers on the near-future risks posed by full or near-full autonomy in military technology, and we provide regulatory suggestions to mitigate these risks. We call upon AI policy experts and the defense AI community in particular to embrace transparency and caution in their development and deployment of AWS to avoid the negative effects on global stability and AI research that we highlight here. Riley Simmons-Edler, Ryan Paul Badman, Shayne Longpre, Kanaka Rajan |
ICML | 1 |
| 2021 | AuraSense: Robot Collision Avoidance by Full Surface Proximity DetectionabstractPerceiving obstacles and avoiding collisions is fundamental to the safe operation of a robot system, particularly when the robot must operate in highly dynamic human environments. Proximity detection using on-robot sensors can be used to avoid or mitigate impending collisions. However, existing proximity sensing methods are orientation and placement dependent, resulting in blind spots even with large numbers of sensors. In this paper, we introduce the phenomenon of the Leaky Surface Wave (LSW), a novel sensing modality, and present AuraSense, a proximity detection system using the LSW. AuraSense is the first system to realize no-dead-spot proximity sensing for robot arms. It requires only a single pair of piezoelectric transducers, and can easily be applied to off-the-shelf robots with minimal modifications. We further introduce a set of signal processing techniques and a lightweight neural network to address the unique challenges in using the LSW for proximity sensing. Finally, we demonstrate a prototype system consisting of a single piezoelectric element pair on a robot manipulator, which validates our design. We conducted several micro benchmark experiments and performed more than 2000 on-robot proximity detection trials with various potential robot arm materials, colliding objects, approach patterns, and robot movement patterns. AuraSense achieves 100% and 95.3% true positive proximity detection rates when the arm approaches static and mobile obstacles respectively, with a true negative rate over 99%, showing the real-world viability of this system. Xiaoran Fan, Riley Simmons-Edler, Dae-Won Lee, Lawrence D. Jackel, Richard E. Howard, Daniel D. Lee |
IROS | 2 |
| 2020 | Reward Prediction Error as an Exploration Objective in Deep RLabstractA major challenge in reinforcement learning is exploration, when local dithering methods such as epsilon-greedy sampling are insufficient to solve a given task. Many recent methods have proposed to intrinsically motivate an agent to seek novel states, driving the agent to discover improved reward. However, while state-novelty exploration methods are suitable for tasks where novel observations correlate well with improved reward, they may not explore more efficiently than epsilon-greedy approaches in environments where the two are not well-correlated. In this paper, we distinguish between exploration tasks in which seeking novel states aids in finding new reward, and those where it does not, such as goal-conditioned tasks and escaping local reward maxima. We propose a new exploration objective, maximizing the reward prediction error (RPE) of a value function trained to predict extrinsic reward. We then propose a deep reinforcement learning method, QXplore, which exploits the temporal difference error of a Q-function to solve hard exploration tasks in high-dimensional MDPs. We demonstrate the exploration behavior of QXplore on several OpenAI Gym MuJoCo tasks and Atari games and observe that QXplore is comparable to or better than a baseline state-novelty method in all cases, outperforming the baseline on tasks where state novelty is not well-correlated with improved reward. Riley Simmons-Edler, Ben Eisner, Daniel Yang, Anthony Bisulco, Eric Mitchell, H. Sebastian Seung, Daniel D. Lee |
IJCAI | 1 |