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

Peter Schmitt-Förster

dblp:378/5588 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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
Reinforcement learning · 80% Learning theory · 20%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
continuous state-action spaces
0.812024
Randomized algorithms and PAC bounds for inverse reinforcement learning in continuous spaces · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › imitation learning
inverse reinforcement learning
0.812024
Randomized algorithms and PAC bounds for inverse reinforcement learning in continuous spaces · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › value-based reinforcement learning
q-learning
0.812024
Regularized Q-learning through Robust Averaging · ICML 2024
Machine learning › Learning theory
sample complexity
0.812024
Randomized algorithms and PAC bounds for inverse reinforcement learning in continuous spaces · NeurIPS 2024

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

scenario approach · 0.8robust averaging · 0.8occupation measures · 0.8linear programming · 0.8distributionally robust estimation · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Regularized Q-learning through Robust Averaging
abstract
We propose a new Q-learning variant, called 2RA Q-learning, that addresses some weaknesses of existing Q-learning methods in a principled manner. One such weakness is an underlying estimation bias which cannot be controlled and often results in poor performance. We propose a distributionally robust estimator for the maximum expected value term, which allows us to precisely control the level of estimation bias introduced. The distributionally robust estimator admits a closed-form solution such that the proposed algorithm has a computational cost per iteration comparable to Watkins' Q-learning. For the tabular case, we show that 2RA Q-learning converges to the optimal policy and analyze its asymptotic mean-squared error. Lastly, we conduct numerical experiments for various settings, which corroborate our theoretical findings and indicate that 2RA Q-learning often performs better than existing methods.
Peter Schmitt-Förster, Tobias Sutter
ICML1
2024 Randomized algorithms and PAC bounds for inverse reinforcement learning in continuous spaces
abstract
This work studies discrete-time discounted Markov decision processes with continuous state and action spaces and addresses the inverse problem of inferring a cost function from observed optimal behavior. We first consider the case in which we have access to the entire expert policy and characterize the set of solutions to the inverse problem by using occupation measures, linear duality, and complementary slackness conditions. To avoid trivial solutions and ill-posedness, we introduce a natural linear normalization constraint. This results in an infinite-dimensional linear feasibility problem, prompting a thorough analysis of its properties. Next, we use linear function approximators and adopt a randomized approach, namely the scenario approach and related probabilistic feasibility guarantees, to derive $\varepsilon$-optimal solutions for the inverse problem. We further discuss the sample complexity for a desired approximation accuracy. Finally, we deal with the more realistic case where we only have access to a finite set of expert demonstrations and a generative model and provide bounds on the error made when working with samples.
Angeliki Kamoutsi, Peter Schmitt-Förster, Tobias Sutter, Volkan Cevher, John Lygeros
NeurIPS2