Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Leah Chrestien

dblp:308/1751 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 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
1 paper
Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 91% Reinforcement learning · 9%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › heuristic search
forward search
0.712023
Optimize Planning Heuristics to Rank, not to Estimate Cost-to-Goal · NeurIPS 2023
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › heuristic search › heuristic generation
heuristic learning
0.712023
Optimize Planning Heuristics to Rank, not to Estimate Cost-to-Goal · NeurIPS 2023
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
heuristic search
0.712023
Optimize Planning Heuristics to Rank, not to Estimate Cost-to-Goal · NeurIPS 2023
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
imitation learning
0.212023
Optimize Planning Heuristics to Rank, not to Estimate Cost-to-Goal · NeurIPS 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

ranking loss · 0.7imitation learning · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Optimize Planning Heuristics to Rank, not to Estimate Cost-to-Goal
abstract
In imitation learning for planning, parameters of heuristic functions are optimized against a set of solved problem instances. This work revisits the necessary and sufficient conditions of strictly optimally efficient heuristics for forward search algorithms, mainly A* and greedy best-first search, which expand only states on the returned optimal path. It then proposes a family of loss functions based on ranking tailored for a given variant of the forward search algorithm. Furthermore, from a learning theory point of view, it discusses why optimizing cost-to-goal h* is unnecessarily difficult. The experimental comparison on a diverse set of problems unequivocally supports the derived theory.
Leah Chrestien, Stefan Edelkamp, Antonín Komenda, Tomás Pevný
NeurIPS1