Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Eric D. Langlois 0002
dblp:285/4728-2
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-author · 3 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 1 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
2 papers |
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 23% Trustworthy machine learning · 23% Reinforcement learning · 23% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Learning theory › statistical learning theory
asymptotic analysis |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | How RL Agents Behave When Their Actions Are Modified · AAAI 2021 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Agent Incentives: A Causal Perspective · AAAI 2021 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
causal inference |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | Agent Incentives: A Causal Perspective · AAAI 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
graphical criteria · 0.5causal influence diagrams · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Incentives for responsiveness, instrumental control and impact
Ryan Carey, Eric D. Langlois 0002, Chris van Merwijk, Shane Legg, Tom Everitt |
Artif. Intell. | 2 |
| 2021 | Agent Incentives: A Causal PerspectiveabstractWe present a framework for analysing agent incentives using causal influence diagrams. We establish that a well-known criterion for value of information is complete. We propose a new graphical criterion for value of control, establishing its soundness and completeness. We also introduce two new concepts for incentive analysis: response incentives indicate which changes in the environment affect an optimal decision, while instrumental control incentives establish whether an agent can influence its utility via a variable X. For both new concepts, we provide sound and complete graphical criteria. We show by example how these results can help with evaluating the safety and fairness of an AI system Tom Everitt, Ryan Carey, Eric D. Langlois 0002, Pedro A. Ortega, Shane Legg |
AAAI | 3 |
| 2021 | How RL Agents Behave When Their Actions Are ModifiedabstractReinforcement learning in complex environments may require supervision to prevent the agent from attempting dangerous actions. As a result of supervisor intervention, the executed action may differ from the action specified by the policy. How does this affect learning? We present the Modified-Action Markov Decision Process, an extension of the MDP model that allows actions to differ from the policy. We analyze the asymptotic behaviours of common reinforcement learning algorithms in this setting and show that they adapt in different ways: some completely ignore modifications while others go to various lengths in trying to avoid action modifications that decrease reward. By choosing the right algorithm, developers can prevent their agents from learning to circumvent interruptions or constraints, and better control agent responses to other kinds of action modification, like self-damage. Eric D. Langlois 0002, Tom Everitt |
AAAI | 1 |