EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Mattie Fellows
dblp:319/5020
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
3as first author
6since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 3 first-author · 6 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
6 papers |
Reinforcement learning · 77% Optimization for machine learning · 9% Learning theory · 5% |
Topics — the 18 heaviest of 19, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
temporal difference learning |
1.5 | 2 | 2025 | Simplifying Deep Temporal Difference Learning · ICLR 2025 Why Target Networks Stabilise Temporal Difference Methods · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
bayesian reinforcement learning |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | Bayesian Exploration Networks · ICML 2024 Bayesian Bellman Operators · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › deep reinforcement learning
deep q-learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Simplifying Deep Temporal Difference Learning · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › temporal difference learning
off-policy TD learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Simplifying Deep Temporal Difference Learning · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
sample efficiency |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Simplifying Deep Temporal Difference Learning · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › adaptive optimization
adam |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Adam on Local Time: Addressing Nonstationarity in RL with Relative Adam Timesteps · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
exploration |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Refining Minimax Regret for Unsupervised Environment Design · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling › computational creativity › creative generation
level generation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Refining Minimax Regret for Unsupervised Environment Design · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning › regret bounds
minimax regret |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Refining Minimax Regret for Unsupervised Environment Design · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-free reinforcement learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Bayesian Exploration Networks · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reinforcement learning environment › environment design
unsupervised environment design |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Refining Minimax Regret for Unsupervised Environment Design · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reinforcement learning theory
deadly triad |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Why Target Networks Stabilise Temporal Difference Methods · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
policy evaluation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Why Target Networks Stabilise Temporal Difference Methods · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
target network |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Why Target Networks Stabilise Temporal Difference Methods · ICML 2023 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
convergence analysis |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Bayesian Bellman Operators · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
value-based reinforcement learning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Bayesian Bellman Operators · NeurIPS 2021 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › normalization
layer normalization |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Simplifying Deep Temporal Difference Learning · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
regularization |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Simplifying Deep Temporal Difference Learning · ICLR 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
vectorized environment sampling · 0.9layer normalization · 0.9variational inference · 0.8regret minimization · 0.8normalising flows · 0.8local timestep · 0.8learning rate annealing · 0.8adam · 0.8Bayesian level-perfect MMR · 0.8fitted policy evaluation · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Simplifying Deep Temporal Difference Learningabstract$Q$-learning played a foundational role in the field reinforcement learning (RL).
However, TD algorithms with off-policy data, such as $Q$-learning, or nonlinear function approximation like deep neural networks require several additional tricks to stabilise training, primarily a large replay buffer and target networks. Unfortunately, the delayed updating of frozen network parameters in the target network harms the sample efficiency and, similarly, the large replay buffer introduces memory and implementation overheads. In this paper, we investigate whether it is possible to accelerate and simplify off-policy TD training while maintaining its stability. Our key theoretical result demonstrates for the first time that regularisation techniques such as LayerNorm can yield provably convergent TD algorithms without the need for a target network or replay buffer, even with off-policy data. Empirically, we find that online, parallelised sampling enabled by vectorised environments stabilises training without the need for a large replay buffer. Motivated by these findings, we propose PQN, our simplified deep online $Q$-Learning algorithm. Surprisingly, this simple algorithm is competitive with more complex methods like: Rainbow in Atari, PPO-RNN in Craftax, QMix in Smax, and can be up to 50x faster than traditional DQN without sacrificing sample efficiency. In an era where PPO has become the go-to RL algorithm, PQN reestablishes off-policy $Q$-learning as a viable alternative. Matteo Gallici, Mattie Fellows, Benjamin Ellis, Bartomeu Pou, Ivan Masmitja, Jakob N. Foerster, Mario Martin |
ICLR | 2 |
| 2024 | Refining Minimax Regret for Unsupervised Environment DesignabstractIn unsupervised environment design, reinforcement learning agents are trained on environment configurations (levels) generated by an adversary that maximises some objective. Regret is a commonly used objective that theoretically results in a minimax regret (MMR) policy with desirable robustness guarantees; in particular, the agent’s maximum regret is bounded. However, once the agent reaches this regret bound on all levels, the adversary will only sample levels where regret cannot be further reduced. Although there may be possible performance improvements to be made outside of these regret-maximising levels, learning stagnates. In this work, we introduce Bayesian level-perfect MMR (BLP), a refinement of the minimax regret objective that overcomes this limitation. We formally show that solving for this objective results in a subset of MMR policies, and that BLP policies act consistently with a Perfect Bayesian policy over all levels. We further introduce an algorithm, ReMiDi, that results in a BLP policy at convergence. We empirically demonstrate that training on levels from a minimax regret adversary causes learning to prematurely stagnate, but that ReMiDi continues learning. Michael Beukman, Samuel Coward, Michael T. Matthews, Mattie Fellows, Minqi Jiang, Michael Dennis 0001, Jakob N. Foerster |
ICML | 4 |
| 2024 | Bayesian Exploration NetworksabstractBayesian reinforcement learning (RL) offers a principled and elegant approach for sequential decision making under uncertainty. Most notably, Bayesian agents do not face an exploration/exploitation dilemma, a major pathology of frequentist methods. However theoretical understanding of model-free approaches is lacking. In this paper, we introduce a novel Bayesian model-free formulation and the first analysis showing that model-free approaches can yield Bayes-optimal policies. We show all existing model-free approaches make approximations that yield policies that can be arbitrarily Bayes-suboptimal. As a first step towards model-free Bayes optimality, we introduce the Bayesian exploration network (BEN) which uses normalising flows to model both the aleatoric uncertainty (via density estimation) and epistemic uncertainty (via variational inference) in the Bellman operator. In the limit of complete optimisation, BEN learns true Bayes-optimal policies, but like in variational expectation-maximisation, partial optimisation renders our approach tractable. Empirical results demonstrate that BEN can learn true Bayes-optimal policies in tasks where existing model-free approaches fail. Mattie Fellows, Brandon Kaplowitz, Christian Schröder de Witt, Shimon Whiteson |
ICML | 1 |
| 2024 | Adam on Local Time: Addressing Nonstationarity in RL with Relative Adam TimestepsabstractIn reinforcement learning (RL), it is common to apply techniques used broadly in
machine learning such as neural network function approximators and momentum-based optimizers. However, such tools were largely developed for supervised learning rather than nonstationary RL, leading practitioners to adopt target networks, clipped policy updates, and other RL-specific implementation tricks to combat this mismatch, rather than directly adapting this toolchain for use in RL.
In this paper, we take a different approach and instead address the effect of nonstationarity by adapting the widely used Adam optimiser.
We first analyse the impact of nonstationary gradient magnitude --- such as that caused by a change in target network --- on Adam's update size, demonstrating that such a change can lead to large updates and hence sub-optimal performance.
To address this, we introduce Adam-Rel.
Rather than using the global timestep in the Adam update, Adam-Rel uses the *local* timestep within an epoch, essentially resetting Adam's timestep to 0 after target changes.
We demonstrate that this avoids large updates and reduces to learning rate annealing in the absence of such increases in gradient magnitude. Evaluating Adam-Rel in both on-policy and off-policy RL, we demonstrate improved performance in both Atari and Craftax.
We then show that increases in gradient norm occur in RL in practice, and examine the differences between our
theoretical model and the observed data. Benjamin Ellis, Matthew Thomas Jackson, Andrei Lupu, Alexander David Goldie, Mattie Fellows, Shimon Whiteson, Jakob N. Foerster |
NeurIPS | 5 |
| 2023 | Why Target Networks Stabilise Temporal Difference MethodsabstractIntegral to recent successes in deep reinforcement learning has been a class of temporal difference methods that use infrequently updated target values for policy evaluation in a Markov Decision Process. Yet a complete theoretical explanation for the effectiveness of target networks remains elusive. In this work, we provide an analysis of this popular class of algorithms, to finally answer the question: “why do target networks stabilise TD learning”? To do so, we formalise the notion of a partially fitted policy evaluation method, which describes the use of target networks and bridges the gap between fitted methods and semigradient temporal difference algorithms. Using this framework we are able to uniquely characterise the so-called deadly triad–the use of TD updates with (nonlinear) function approximation and off-policy data–which often leads to nonconvergent algorithms.This insight leads us to conclude that the use of target networks can mitigate the effects of poor conditioning in the Jacobian of the TD update. Instead, we show that under mild regularity con- ditions and a well tuned target network update frequency, convergence can be guaranteed even in the extremely challenging off-policy sampling and nonlinear function approximation setting. Mattie Fellows, Matthew Smith 0014, Shimon Whiteson |
ICML | 1 |
| 2021 | Bayesian Bellman OperatorsabstractWe introduce a novel perspective on Bayesian reinforcement learning (RL); whereas existing approaches infer a posterior over the transition distribution or Q-function, we characterise the uncertainty in the Bellman operator. Our Bayesian Bellman operator (BBO) framework is motivated by the insight that when bootstrapping is introduced, model-free approaches actually infer a posterior over Bellman operators, not value functions. In this paper, we use BBO to provide a rigorous theoretical analysis of model-free Bayesian RL to better understand its relationship to established frequentist RL methodologies. We prove that Bayesian solutions are consistent with frequentist RL solutions, even when approximate inference is used, and derive conditions for which convergence properties hold. Empirically, we demonstrate that algorithms derived from the BBO framework have sophisticated deep exploration properties that enable them to solve continuous control tasks at which state-of-the-art regularised actor-critic algorithms fail catastrophically. Mattie Fellows, Kristian Hartikainen, Shimon Whiteson |
NeurIPS | 1 |