EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Fahim Tajwar
dblp:292/1504
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
2as 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 · 2 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 · 39% Language models and text generation · 23% Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 13% |
Topics — the 19 heaviest of 21, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › value function estimation
advantage estimation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Retrospective In-Context Learning for Temporal Credit Assignment with Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
curriculum learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Training a Generally Curious Agent · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
exploration |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Training a Generally Curious Agent · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › meta-reinforcement learning
in-context adaptation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Training a Generally Curious Agent · ICML 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
in-context learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Retrospective In-Context Learning for Temporal Credit Assignment with Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model reasoning
inference-time reasoning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Reasoning as an Adaptive Defense for Safety · NeurIPS 2025 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning under uncertainty
information gathering |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Training a Generally Curious Agent · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › adversarial machine learning › adversarial defense
jailbreak defense |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Reasoning as an Adaptive Defense for Safety · NeurIPS 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model safety |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Reasoning as an Adaptive Defense for Safety · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › multi-agent reinforcement learning › credit assignment
temporal credit assignment |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Retrospective In-Context Learning for Temporal Credit Assignment with Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
on-policy reinforcement learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Data · ICML 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
preference optimization |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Data · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
distribution shift adaptation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Surgical Fine-Tuning Improves Adaptation to Distribution Shifts · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
fine-tuning |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Surgical Fine-Tuning Improves Adaptation to Distribution Shifts · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Surgical Fine-Tuning Improves Adaptation to Distribution Shifts · ICLR 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
autonomous reinforcement learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | When to Ask for Help: Proactive Interventions in Autonomous Reinforcement Learning · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
online learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Retrospective In-Context Learning for Temporal Credit Assignment with Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
sample efficiency |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Retrospective In-Context Learning for Temporal Credit Assignment with Large Language Models · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › out-of-distribution generalization
invariant learning |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Do deep networks transfer invariances across classes? · ICLR 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
reinforcement learning · 1.6synthetic interaction data · 0.9supervised fine-tuning · 0.9large language model · 0.9fine-tuning · 0.9chain-of-thought · 0.9RICOL · 0.9supervised learning · 0.8contrastive learning · 0.8parameter-selective fine-tuning · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Training a Generally Curious AgentabstractEfficient exploration is essential for intelligent systems interacting with their environment, but existing language models often fall short in scenarios that require strategic information gathering. In this paper, we present **Paprika**, a fine-tuning approach that enables language models to develop general decision-making capabilities that are not confined to particular environments. By training on synthetic interaction data from different tasks that require diverse strategies, Paprika teaches models to explore and adapt their behavior on a new task based on environment feedback in-context without more gradient updates. Experimental results show that models fine-tuned with Paprika can effectively transfer their learned decision-making capabilities to entirely unseen tasks without additional training. Unlike traditional training, our approach's primary bottleneck lies in sampling useful interaction data instead of model updates. To improve sample efficiency, we propose a curriculum learning strategy that prioritizes sampling trajectories from tasks with high learning potential. These results suggest a promising path towards AI systems that can autonomously solve novel sequential decision-making problems that require interactions with the external world. Fahim Tajwar, Yiding Jiang, Abitha Thankaraj, Sumaita Sadia Rahman, J. Zico Kolter, Jeff G. Schneider, Ruslan Salakhutdinov |
ICML | 1 |
| 2025 | Retrospective In-Context Learning for Temporal Credit Assignment with Large Language ModelsabstractLearning from self-sampled data and sparse environmental feedback remains a fundamental challenge in training self-evolving agents. Temporal credit assignment mitigates this issue by transforming sparse feedback into dense supervision signals. However, previous approaches typically depend on domain-specific value functions for credit assignment, which suffer from poor sample efficiency and limited generalization. In this work, we propose to leverage pre-trained knowledge from large language models (LLMs) to transform sparse rewards into dense training signals (i.e., the advantage function) through retrospective in-context learning (RICL). We further propose an online learning framework, RICOL, which iteratively refines the policy based on the credit assignment results from RICL. We empirically demonstrate that RICL can accurately estimate the advantage function with limited samples and effectively identify critical states for temporal credit assignment. Extended evaluation on the BabyAI benchmark shows that RICOL significantly improves sample efficiency compared to traditional online RL algorithms while achieving performance comparable to imitation learning from expert demonstartions. Our findings highlight the potential of leveraging LLMs for temporal credit assignment, paving the way for more sample-efficient and generalizable RL paradigms. Wen-Tse Chen, Fahim Tajwar, Hao Zhu 0011, Xintong Duan, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Jeff G. Schneider |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2025 | Reasoning as an Adaptive Defense for SafetyabstractReasoning methods that adaptively allocate test-time compute have advanced LLM performance on easy to verify domains such as math and code. In this work, we study how to utilize this approach to train models that exhibit a degree of robustness to safety vulnerabilities, and show that doing so can provide benefits. We build a recipe called $\textit{\textbf{TARS}}$ (Training Adaptive Reasoners for Safety), a reinforcement learning (RL) approach that trains models to reason about safety using chain-of-thought traces and a reward signal that balances safety with task completion. To build TARS, we identify three critical design choices: (1) a ``lightweight'' warmstart SFT stage, (2) a mix of harmful, harmless, and ambiguous prompts to prevent shortcut behaviors such as too many refusals, and (3) a reward function to prevent degeneration of reasoning capabilities during training. Models trained with TARS exhibit adaptive behaviors by spending more compute on ambiguous queries, leading to better safety-refusal trade-offs. They also internally learn to better distinguish between safe and unsafe prompts and attain greater robustness to both white-box (e.g., GCG) and black-box attacks (e.g., PAIR). Overall, our work provides an effective, open recipe for training LLMs against jailbreaks and harmful requests by reasoning per prompt. Taeyoun Kim, Fahim Tajwar, Aditi Raghunathan, Aviral Kumar |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2024 | Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy DataabstractLearning from preference labels plays a crucial role in fine-tuning large language models — this is done via supervised learning, on-policy reinforcement learning (RL), or contrastive learning. Different methods come with different implementation tradeoffs, and existing empirical findings present different conclusions, for instance, some results show that online RL is quite important to attain good fine-tuning results, while others find offline methods sufficient. This raises a question: what kind of approaches are important for fine-tuning with preference data and why? In this paper, we answer this question by performing a rigorous analysis of a number of fine-tuning techniques on didactic and full-scale LLM problems. Our main finding is that approaches that use on-policy sampling and attempt to push down the likelihood on certain responses (i.e., employ a ”negative gradient”) outperform offline and maximum likelihood objectives. We conceptualize our insights and unify methods that use on-policy sampling or negative gradient under a notion of mode-seeking objectives for categorical distributions. Mode-seeking objectives are able to alter probability mass on specific bins of a categorical distribution at a fast rate compared to maximum likelihood, allowing them to relocate masses across bins more effectively. Our analysis prescribes actionable insights for preference fine-tuning of LLMs and informs how data should be collected for maximal improvement. Fahim Tajwar, Anikait Singh, Archit Sharma, Rafael Rafailov, Jeff G. Schneider, Tengyang Xie, Stefano Ermon, Chelsea Finn, Aviral Kumar |
ICML | 1 |
| 2023 | Surgical Fine-Tuning Improves Adaptation to Distribution Shifts
Yoonho Lee 0001, Annie S. Chen, Fahim Tajwar, Ananya Kumar, Huaxiu Yao, Percy Liang, Chelsea Finn |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2022 | Do deep networks transfer invariances across classes?
Allan Zhou, Fahim Tajwar, Alexander Robey, Tom Knowles, George J. Pappas, Seyed Hamed Hassani, Chelsea Finn |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2022 | When to Ask for Help: Proactive Interventions in Autonomous Reinforcement LearningabstractA long-term goal of reinforcement learning is to design agents that can autonomously interact and learn in the world. A critical challenge to such autonomy is the presence of irreversible states which require external assistance to recover from, such as when a robot arm has pushed an object off of a table. While standard agents require constant monitoring to decide when to intervene, we aim to design proactive agents that can request human intervention only when needed. To this end, we propose an algorithm that efficiently learns to detect and avoid states that are irreversible, and proactively asks for help in case the agent does enter them. On a suite of continuous control environments with unknown irreversible states, we find that our algorithm exhibits better sample- and intervention-efficiency compared to existing methods. Annie Xie, Fahim Tajwar, Archit Sharma, Chelsea Finn |
NeurIPS | 2 |