EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Runlong Zhou
dblp:290/8755
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
3as first author
7since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 3 first-author · 7 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
7 papers |
Reinforcement learning · 62% Language models and text generation · 14% Learning theory · 11% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Computational complexity · 100% |
Topics — the 22 heaviest of 23, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-based reinforcement learning |
1.5 | 3 | 2024 | Sharp Variance-Dependent Bounds in Reinforcement Learning: Best of Both Worlds in Stochastic and Deterministic Environments · ICML 2023 Horizon-Free and Variance-Dependent Reinforcement Learning for Latent Markov Decision Processes · ICML 2023 Free from Bellman Completeness: Trajectory Stitching via Model-based Return-conditioned Supervised Learning · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
markov decision process |
1.5 | 2 | 2025 | Sharp Gap-Dependent Variance-Aware Regret Bounds for Tabular MDPs · NeurIPS 2025 Sharp Variance-Dependent Bounds in Reinforcement Learning: Best of Both Worlds in Stochastic and Deterministic Environments · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning
regret bounds |
1.5 | 2 | 2025 | Sharp Gap-Dependent Variance-Aware Regret Bounds for Tabular MDPs · NeurIPS 2025 Sharp Variance-Dependent Bounds in Reinforcement Learning: Best of Both Worlds in Stochastic and Deterministic Environments · ICML 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
alignment |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The Crucial Role of Samplers in Online Direct Preference Optimization · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
convergence analysis |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The Crucial Role of Samplers in Online Direct Preference Optimization · ICLR 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › preference optimization
direct preference optimization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The Crucial Role of Samplers in Online Direct Preference Optimization · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › regret minimization
gap-dependent regret |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Sharp Gap-Dependent Variance-Aware Regret Bounds for Tabular MDPs · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
sampling |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The Crucial Role of Samplers in Online Direct Preference Optimization · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › markov decision process › finite markov decision processes
tabular MDP |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Sharp Gap-Dependent Variance-Aware Regret Bounds for Tabular MDPs · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › regret minimization
horizon-free regret |
0.8 | 2 | 2023 | Horizon-Free and Variance-Dependent Reinforcement Learning for Latent Markov Decision Processes · ICML 2023 Stochastic Shortest Path: Minimax, Parameter-Free and Towards Horizon-Free Regret · NeurIPS 2021 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model fine-tuning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Reflect-RL: Two-Player Online RL Fine-Tuning for LMs · ACL (1) 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
offline reinforcement learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Free from Bellman Completeness: Trajectory Stitching via Model-based Return-conditioned Supervised Learning · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › online decision making
online reinforcement learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Reflect-RL: Two-Player Online RL Fine-Tuning for LMs · ACL (1) 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › offline reinforcement learning
return-conditioned supervised learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Free from Bellman Completeness: Trajectory Stitching via Model-based Return-conditioned Supervised Learning · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › offline reinforcement learning
trajectory stitching |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Free from Bellman Completeness: Trajectory Stitching via Model-based Return-conditioned Supervised Learning · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › partially observable reinforcement learning
latent markov decision process |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Horizon-Free and Variance-Dependent Reinforcement Learning for Latent Markov Decision Processes · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-free reinforcement learning |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Sharp Variance-Dependent Bounds in Reinforcement Learning: Best of Both Worlds in Stochastic and Deterministic Environments · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
regret minimization |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Horizon-Free and Variance-Dependent Reinforcement Learning for Latent Markov Decision Processes · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › regret minimization
variance-dependent regret |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Sharp Variance-Dependent Bounds in Reinforcement Learning: Best of Both Worlds in Stochastic and Deterministic Environments · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning › regret bounds
minimax regret |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Stochastic Shortest Path: Minimax, Parameter-Free and Towards Horizon-Free Regret · NeurIPS 2021 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning under uncertainty
stochastic shortest path |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Stochastic Shortest Path: Minimax, Parameter-Free and Towards Horizon-Free Regret · NeurIPS 2021 |
Computational complexity
lower bounds |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Horizon-Free and Variance-Dependent Reinforcement Learning for Latent Markov Decision Processes · ICML 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
posterior sampling · 0.9monotonic value propagation · 0.9lower bound analysis · 0.9logit mixing · 0.9direct preference optimization · 0.9return-conditioned supervised learning · 0.8reinforcement learning · 0.8reflection · 0.8model-based forward sampling · 0.8dynamic programming · 0.8value-optimistic solver · 0.7truncation method · 0.7symmetrization · 0.7model-optimistic solver · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | The Crucial Role of Samplers in Online Direct Preference OptimizationabstractDirect Preference Optimization (DPO) has emerged as a stable, scalable, and efficient solution for language model alignment.
Despite its empirical success, the optimization properties, particularly the impact of samplers on its convergence rates, remain under-explored. In this paper, we provide a rigorous analysis of DPO's convergence rates with different sampling strategies under the exact gradient setting, revealing a surprising separation: uniform sampling achieves $\textbf{linear}$ convergence, while our proposed online sampler achieves $\textbf{quadratic}$ convergence. We further adapt the sampler to practical settings by incorporating posterior distributions and logit mixing, demonstrating improvements over previous methods. For example, it outperforms vanilla DPO by over $7.4$% on Safe-RLHF dataset. Our results not only offer insights into the theoretical understanding of DPO but also pave the way for further algorithm designs. Ruizhe Shi, Runlong Zhou, Simon S. Du |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2025 | Sharp Gap-Dependent Variance-Aware Regret Bounds for Tabular MDPsabstractWe consider gap-dependent regret bounds for episodic MDPs.
We show that the Monotonic Value Propagation (MVP) algorithm (Zhang et al. [2024]) achieves a variance-aware gap-dependent regret bound of
$$\tilde{O}\left(\left(\sum_{\Delta_h(s,a)>0} \frac{H^2 \log K \land \mathtt{Var}\_{\max}^{\textup{c}}}{\Delta_h(s,a)} +\sum_{\Delta_h(s,a)=0}\frac{ H^2 \land \mathtt{Var}\_{\max}^{\textup{c}}}{\Delta_{\mathrm{min}}} + SAH^4 (S \lor H) \right) \log K\right),$$
where $H$ is the planning horizon, $S$ is the number of states, $A$ is the number of actions, $K$ is the number of episodes, and $\tilde{O}$ hides $\mathsf{poly} \log (S, A, H, 1 / \Delta\_{\mathrm{min}}, 1 / \delta)$ terms. Here, $\Delta_h(s,a) =V_h^* (a) - Q_h^* (s, a)$ represents the suboptimality gap and $\Delta_{\mathrm{min}} := \min_{\Delta_h (s,a) > 0} \Delta_h(s,a)$.
The term $\mathtt{Var}\_{\max}^{\textup{c}}$ denotes the maximum conditional total variance, calculated as the maximum over all $(\pi, h, s)$ tuples of the expected total variance under policy $\pi$ conditioned on trajectories visiting state $s$ at step $h$.
$\mathtt{Var}\_{\max}^{\textup{c}}$ characterizes the maximum randomness encountered when learning any $(h, s)$ pair.
Our result stems from a novel analysis of the weighted sum of the suboptimality gap and can be potentially adapted for other algorithms.
To complement the study, we establish a lower bound of
$$\Omega \left( \sum_{\Delta_h(s,a)>0} \frac{H^2 \land \mathtt{Var}\_{\max}^{\textup{c}}}{\Delta_h(s,a)}\cdot \log K\right),$$
demonstrating the necessity of dependence on $\mathtt{Var}\_{\max}^{\textup{c}}$ even when the maximum unconditional total variance (without conditioning on $(h, s)$) approaches zero. Shulun Chen, Runlong Zhou, Maryam Fazel, Simon S. Du |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2024 | Reflect-RL: Two-Player Online RL Fine-Tuning for LMsabstractEnvironment Observation You are in the middle of a room.You see a cabinet 18, a cabinet 3, a ... Possible Actions 1. Close microwave 2. Put tomato in microwave 3. Go to cabinet ... Reflect Agent ReflectionTaking the tomato to the microwave is correct.Next step is to place the tomato ... Runlong Zhou, Simon S. Du, Beibin Li |
ACL (1) | 1 |
| 2024 | Free from Bellman Completeness: Trajectory Stitching via Model-based Return-conditioned Supervised LearningabstractOff-policy dynamic programming (DP) techniques such as $Q$-learning have proven to be important in sequential decision-making problems. In the presence of function approximation, however, these techniques often diverge due to the absence of Bellman completeness in the function classes considered, a crucial condition for the success of DP-based methods. In this paper, we show how off-policy learning techniques based on return-conditioned supervised learning (RCSL) are able to circumvent these challenges of Bellman completeness, converging under significantly more relaxed assumptions inherited from supervised learning. We prove there exists a natural environment in which if one uses two-layer multilayer perceptron as the function approximator, the layer width needs to grow *linearly* with the state space size to satisfy Bellman completeness while a constant layer width is enough for RCSL. These findings take a step towards explaining the superior empirical performance of RCSL methods compared to DP-based methods in environments with near-optimal datasets. Furthermore, in order to learn from sub-optimal datasets, we propose a simple framework called MBRCSL, granting RCSL methods the ability of dynamic programming to stitch together segments from distinct trajectories. MBRCSL leverages learned dynamics models and forward sampling to accomplish trajectory stitching while avoiding the need for Bellman completeness that plagues all dynamic programming algorithms. We propose both theoretical analysis and experimental evaluation to back these claims, outperforming state-of-the-art model-free and model-based offline RL algorithms across several simulated robotics problems. Zhaoyi Zhou, Chuning Zhu, Runlong Zhou, Qiwen Cui, Abhishek Gupta 0004, Simon S. Du |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2023 | Horizon-Free and Variance-Dependent Reinforcement Learning for Latent Markov Decision ProcessesabstractWe study regret minimization for reinforcement learning (RL) in Latent Markov Decision Processes (LMDPs) with context in hindsight. We design a novel model-based algorithmic framework which can be instantiated with both a model-optimistic and a value-optimistic solver. We prove an $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{\mathsf{Var}^\star M \Gamma S A K})$ regret bound where $\tilde{O}$ hides logarithm factors, $M$ is the number of contexts, $S$ is the number of states, $A$ is the number of actions, $K$ is the number of episodes, $\Gamma \le S$ is the maximum transition degree of any state-action pair, and $\mathsf{Var}^\star$ is a variance quantity describing the determinism of the LMDP. The regret bound only scales logarithmically with the planning horizon, thus yielding the first (nearly) horizon-free regret bound for LMDP. This is also the first problem-dependent regret bound for LMDP. Key in our proof is an analysis of the total variance of alpha vectors (a generalization of value functions), which is handled with a truncation method. We complement our positive result with a novel $\Omega(\sqrt{\mathsf{Var}^\star M S A K})$ regret lower bound with $\Gamma = 2$, which shows our upper bound minimax optimal when $\Gamma$ is a constant for the class of variance-bounded LMDPs. Our lower bound relies on new constructions of hard instances and an argument inspired by the symmetrization technique from theoretical computer science, both of which are technically different from existing lower bound proof for MDPs, and thus can be of independent interest. Runlong Zhou, Ruosong Wang, Simon S. Du |
ICML | 1 |
| 2023 | Sharp Variance-Dependent Bounds in Reinforcement Learning: Best of Both Worlds in Stochastic and Deterministic EnvironmentsabstractWe study variance-dependent regret bounds for Markov decision processes (MDPs). Algorithms with variance-dependent regret guarantees can automatically exploit environments with low variance (e.g., enjoying constant regret on deterministic MDPs). The existing algorithms are either variance-independent or suboptimal. We first propose two new environment norms to characterize the fine-grained variance properties of the environment. For model-based methods, we design a variant of the MVP algorithm (Zhang et al., 2021a). We apply new analysis techniques to demonstrate that this algorithm enjoys variance-dependent bounds with respect to the norms we propose. In particular, this bound is simultaneously minimax optimal for both stochastic and deterministic MDPs, the first result of its kind. We further initiate the study on model-free algorithms with variance-dependent regret bounds by designing a reference-function-based algorithm with a novel capped-doubling reference update schedule. Lastly, we also provide lower bounds to complement our upper bounds. Runlong Zhou, Simon S. Du |
ICML | 1 |
| 2021 | Stochastic Shortest Path: Minimax, Parameter-Free and Towards Horizon-Free RegretabstractWe study the problem of learning in the stochastic shortest path (SSP) setting, where an agent seeks to minimize the expected cost accumulated before reaching a goal state. We design a novel model-based algorithm EB-SSP that carefully skews the empirical transitions and perturbs the empirical costs with an exploration bonus to induce an optimistic SSP problem whose associated value iteration scheme is guaranteed to converge. We prove that EB-SSP achieves the minimax regret rate $\widetilde{O}(B_{\star} \sqrt{S A K})$, where $K$ is the number of episodes, $S$ is the number of states, $A$ is the number of actions and $B_{\star}$ bounds the expected cumulative cost of the optimal policy from any state, thus closing the gap with the lower bound. Interestingly, EB-SSP obtains this result while being parameter-free, i.e., it does not require any prior knowledge of $B_{\star}$, nor of $T_{\star}$, which bounds the expected time-to-goal of the optimal policy from any state. Furthermore, we illustrate various cases (e.g., positive costs, or general costs when an order-accurate estimate of $T_{\star}$ is available) where the regret only contains a logarithmic dependence on $T_{\star}$, thus yielding the first (nearly) horizon-free regret bound beyond the finite-horizon MDP setting. Jean Tarbouriech, Runlong Zhou, Simon S. Du, Matteo Pirotta, Michal Valko, Alessandro Lazaric |
NeurIPS | 2 |