Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Andrew Jacobsen
dblp:245/2567
· DBLP profile ↗
9ranked-venue papers
6as first author
8since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 9 · 6 first-author · 8 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
8 papers |
Learning theory · 74% Reinforcement learning · 14% Optimization for machine learning · 9% | |
| Theoretical computer science
3 papers |
Mathematical optimization · 100% |
Topics — the 15 heaviest of 16, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Learning theory
online learning |
3.4 | 5 | 2026 | Gradient-Variation Regret Bounds for Unconstrained Online Learning · COLT 2026 Online Linear Regression in Dynamic Environments via Discounting · ICML 2024 Unconstrained Online Learning with Unbounded Losses · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning › regret bounds
dynamic regret |
3.0 | 4 | 2026 | Gradient-Variation Regret Bounds for Unconstrained Online Learning · COLT 2026 Online Linear Regression in Dynamic Environments via Discounting · ICML 2024 Unconstrained Online Learning with Unbounded Losses · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning
regret bounds |
2.2 | 3 | 2025 | Dynamic Regret Reduces to Kernelized Static Regret · NeurIPS 2025 An Equivalence Between Static and Dynamic Regret Minimization · NeurIPS 2024 Parameter-free Mirror Descent · COLT 2022 |
Mathematical optimization › online optimization › online convex optimization
dynamic regret |
1.6 | 2 | 2025 | Dynamic Regret Reduces to Kernelized Static Regret · NeurIPS 2025 An Equivalence Between Static and Dynamic Regret Minimization · NeurIPS 2024 |
Mathematical optimization › online optimization
online convex optimization |
1.6 | 2 | 2025 | Dynamic Regret Reduces to Kernelized Static Regret · NeurIPS 2025 An Equivalence Between Static and Dynamic Regret Minimization · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
regret minimization |
1.4 | 2 | 2024 | Online Linear Regression in Dynamic Environments via Discounting · ICML 2024 Unconstrained Online Learning with Unbounded Losses · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning › no-regret algorithms
parameter-free algorithms |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Gradient-Variation Regret Bounds for Unconstrained Online Learning · COLT 2026 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › online optimization
unconstrained online learning |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Gradient-Variation Regret Bounds for Unconstrained Online Learning · COLT 2026 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning › online regression
online linear regression |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Online Linear Regression in Dynamic Environments via Discounting · ICML 2024 |
Mathematical optimization
minimax optimization |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Unconstrained Online Learning with Unbounded Losses · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning › no-regret algorithms
online mirror descent |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Parameter-free Mirror Descent · COLT 2022 |
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 › Optimization for machine learning › adaptive optimization
adaptive learning rate |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Meta-Descent for Online, Continual Prediction · AAAI 2019 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning › no-regret algorithms
follow-the-regularized-leader |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Parameter-free Mirror Descent · COLT 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
online convex optimization · 4.6lower bound analysis · 2.8reproducing kernel hilbert space · 1.7smoothness · 1.0closed-form updates · 1.0vovk-azoury-warmuth forecaster · 0.8discounting · 0.8parameter-free algorithm · 0.6online mirror descent · 0.6off-policy learning · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Gradient-Variation Regret Bounds for Unconstrained Online LearningabstractWe develop parameter-free algorithms for unconstrained online learning with regret guarantees that scale with the gradient variation $V_T(u) = \sum_{t=2}^T \|\nabla f_t(u)-\nabla f_{t-1}(u)\|^2$. For $L$-smooth convex losses, we provide fully-adaptive algorithms achieving regret of $\widetilde{O}(\|u\|\sqrt{V_T(u)} + L\|u\|^2+G^4)$ without requiring prior knowledge of comparator norm $\|u\|$, Lipschitz constant $G$, or smoothness $L$. The update in each round can be computed efficiently via a closed-form expression. Our results extend to dynamic regret and find immediate implications for the stochastically-extended adversarial (SEA) model, which significantly improves upon the previous best-known result (Wang et al., 2025). Yuheng Zhao, Andrew Jacobsen, Nicolò Cesa-Bianchi, Peng Zhao 0006 |
COLT | 2 |
| 2025 | Dynamic Regret Reduces to Kernelized Static RegretabstractWe study dynamic regret in online convex optimization, where the objective is to achieve low cumulative loss relative to an arbitrary benchmark sequence. By observing that competing with an arbitrary sequence of comparators $u_{1},\ldots,u_{T}$ in $\mathcal{W}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{d}$ can be reframed as competing with a *fixed* comparator *function* $u:[1,T]\to \mathcal{W}$, we cast dynamic regret minimization as a *static regret* problem in a *function space*. By carefully constructing a suitable function space in the form of a Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space (RKHS), our reduction enables us to recover the optimal $R_{T}(u_{1},\ldots,u_{T}) = \mathcal{O}(\sqrt{\sum_{t}\\|u_{t}-u_{t-1}\\|T})$ dynamic regret guarantee in the setting of linear losses, and yields new scale-free and directionally-adaptive dynamic regret guarantees. Moreover, unlike prior dynamic-to-static reductions---which are valid only for linear losses---our reduction holds for *any* sequence of losses, allowing us to recover $\mathcal{O}\big(\\|u\\|^2_{\mathcal{H}}+d_{\mathrm{eff}}(\lambda)\ln T\big)$ bounds when the losses have meaningful curvature, where $d_{\mathrm{eff}}(\lambda)$ is a measure of complexity of the RKHS. Despite working in an infinite-dimensional space, the resulting reduction leads to algorithms that are computable in practice, due to the reproducing property of RKHSs. Andrew Jacobsen, Alessandro Rudi, Francesco Orabona, Nicolò Cesa-Bianchi |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2024 | Online Linear Regression in Dynamic Environments via DiscountingabstractWe develop algorithms for online linear regression which achieve optimal static and dynamic regret guarantees even in the complete absence of prior knowledge. We present a novel analysis showing that a discounted variant of the Vovk-Azoury-Warmuth forecaster achieves dynamic regret of the form $R_{T}(\vec{u})\le O\Big(d\log(T)\vee \sqrt{dP_{T}^{\gamma}(\vec{u})T}\Big)$, where $P_{T}^{\gamma}(\vec{u})$ is a measure of variability of the comparator sequence, and show that the discount factor achieving this result can be learned on-the-fly. We show that this result is optimal by providing a matching lower bound. We also extend our results to strongly-adaptive guarantees which hold over every sub-interval $[a,b]\subseteq[1,T]$ simultaneously. Andrew Jacobsen, Ashok Cutkosky |
ICML | 1 |
| 2024 | An Equivalence Between Static and Dynamic Regret MinimizationabstractWe study the problem of dynamic regret minimization in online convex optimization, in which the objective is to minimize the difference between the cumulative loss of an algorithm and that of an arbitrary sequence of comparators. While the literature on this topic is very rich, a unifying framework for the analysis and design of these algorithms is still missing. In this paper we show that *for linear losses, dynamic regret minimization is equivalent to static regret minimization in an extended decision space*. Using this simple observation, we show that there is a frontier of lower bounds trading off penalties due to the variance of the losses and penalties due to variability of the comparator sequence, and provide a framework for achieving any of the guarantees along this frontier. As a result, we also prove for the first time that adapting to the squared path-length of an arbitrary sequence of comparators to achieve regret $R_{T}(u_{1},\dots,u_{T})\le O(\sqrt{T\sum_{t} \\|u_{t}-u_{t+1}\\|^{2}})$ is impossible. However, using our framework we introduce an alternative notion of variability based on a locally-smoothed comparator sequence $\bar u_{1}, \dots, \bar u_{T}$, and provide an algorithm guaranteeing dynamic regret of the form $R_{T}(u_{1},\dots,u_{T})\le \tilde O(\sqrt{T\sum_{i}\\|\bar u_{i}-\bar u_{i+1}\\|^{2}})$, while still matching in the worst case the usual path-length dependencies up to polylogarithmic terms. Andrew Jacobsen, Francesco Orabona |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2023 | Unconstrained Online Learning with Unbounded LossesabstractAlgorithms for online learning typically require one or more boundedness assumptions: that the domain is bounded, that the losses are Lipschitz, or both. In this paper, we develop a new setting for online learning with unbounded domains and non-Lipschitz losses. For this setting we provide an algorithm which guarantees $R_{T}(u)\le \tilde O(G\|u\|\sqrt{T}+L\|u\|^{2}\sqrt{T})$ regret on any problem where the subgradients satisfy $\|g_{t}\|\le G+L\|w_{t}\|$, and show that this bound is unimprovable without further assumptions. We leverage this algorithm to develop new saddle-point optimization algorithms that converge in duality gap in unbounded domains, even in the absence of meaningful curvature. Finally, we provide the first algorithm achieving non-trivial dynamic regret in an unbounded domain for non-Lipschitz losses, as well as a matching lower bound. The regret of our dynamic regret algorithm automatically improves to a novel $L^{*}$ bound when the losses are smooth. Andrew Jacobsen, Ashok Cutkosky |
ICML | 1 |
| 2022 | Parameter-free Mirror DescentabstractWe develop a modified online mirror descent framework that is suitable for building adaptive and parameter-free algorithms in unbounded domains. We leverage this technique to develop the first unconstrained online linear optimization algorithm achieving an optimal dynamic regret bound, and we further demonstrate that natural strategies based on Follow-the-Regularized-Leader are unable to achieve similar results. We also apply our mirror descent framework to build new parameter-free implicit updates, as well as a simplified and improved unconstrained scale-free algorithm. Andrew Jacobsen, Ashok Cutkosky |
COLT | 1 |
| 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 | 4 |
| 2021 | General Value Function NetworksabstractState construction is important for learning in partially observable environments. A general purpose strategy for state construction is to learn the state update using a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), which updates the internal state using the current internal state and the most recent observation. This internal state provides a summary of the observed sequence, to facilitate accurate predictions and decision-making. At the same time, specifying and training RNNs is notoriously tricky, particularly as the common strategy to approximate gradients back in time, called truncated Back-prop Through Time (BPTT), can be sensitive to the truncation window. Further, domain-expertise—which can usually help constrain the function class and so improve trainability—can be difficult to incorporate into complex recurrent units used within RNNs. In this work, we explore how to use multi-step predictions to constrain the RNN and incorporate prior knowledge. In particular, we revisit the idea of using predictions to construct state and ask: does constraining (parts of) the state to consist of predictions about the future improve RNN trainability? We formulate a novel RNN architecture, called a General Value Function Network (GVFN), where each internal state component corresponds to a prediction about the future represented as a value function. We first provide an objective for optimizing GVFNs, and derive several algorithms to optimize this objective. We then show that GVFNs are more robust to the truncation level, in many cases only requiring one-step gradient updates. Matthew Schlegel, Andrew Jacobsen, Zaheer Abbas, Andrew Patterson, Adam White 0001, Martha White |
J. Artif. Intell. Res. | 2 |
| 2019 | Meta-Descent for Online, Continual PredictionabstractThis paper investigates different vector step-size adaptation approaches for non-stationary online, continual prediction problems. Vanilla stochastic gradient descent can be considerably improved by scaling the update with a vector of appropriately chosen step-sizes. Many methods, including AdaGrad, RMSProp, and AMSGrad, keep statistics about the learning process to approximate a second order update—a vector approximation of the inverse Hessian. Another family of approaches use meta-gradient descent to adapt the stepsize parameters to minimize prediction error. These metadescent strategies are promising for non-stationary problems, but have not been as extensively explored as quasi-second order methods. We first derive a general, incremental metadescent algorithm, called AdaGain, designed to be applicable to a much broader range of algorithms, including those with semi-gradient updates or even those with accelerations, such as RMSProp. We provide an empirical comparison of methods from both families. We conclude that methods from both families can perform well, but in non-stationary prediction problems the meta-descent methods exhibit advantages. Our method is particularly robust across several prediction problems, and is competitive with the state-of-the-art method on a large-scale, time-series prediction problem on real data from a mobile robot. Andrew Jacobsen, Matthew Schlegel, Cameron Linke, Thomas Degris, Adam White 0001, Martha White |
AAAI | 1 |