Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Andreas Stuhlmüller
dblp:60/10358
· DBLP profile ↗
10ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 10 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 6 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1
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
3 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 77% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 18% Reinforcement learning · 5% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Programming languages and type systems · 50% Program analysis · 50% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › bayesian decision theory
bayesian inverse planning |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Learning the Preferences of Ignorant, Inconsistent Agents · AAAI 2016 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › nonmonotonic reasoning › preference handling › preference reasoning
preference inference |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Learning the Preferences of Ignorant, Inconsistent Agents · AAAI 2016 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference › approximate inference › variational inference
amortized inference |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Learning Stochastic Inverses · NIPS 2013 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference
bayesian network inference |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Learning Stochastic Inverses · NIPS 2013 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods
markov chain monte carlo |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Learning Stochastic Inverses · NIPS 2013 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods › markov chain monte carlo
metropolis-hastings |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Learning Stochastic Inverses · NIPS 2013 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
statistical inference |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Nonstandard Interpretations of Probabilistic Programs for Efficient Inference · NIPS 2011 |
Programming languages and type systems
probabilistic programming |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Nonstandard Interpretations of Probabilistic Programs for Efficient Inference · NIPS 2011 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › imitation learning
inverse reinforcement learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | Learning the Preferences of Ignorant, Inconsistent Agents · AAAI 2016 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
provenance tracking · 0.2monads · 0.2generative model · 0.2bayesian inference · 0.2automatic differentiation · 0.2stochastic inverse · 0.2block proposals · 0.2Inverse MCMC · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Workshop: Succeeding in the Start-up Ecosystem
Linus Liang, Robert J. Glushko, Douglas Bemis, Sam Ramji, Andreas Stuhlmüller |
CogSci | 5 |
| 2018 | Evaluating Compositionality in Sentence Embeddings
Ishita Dasgupta 0001, Demi Guo, Andreas Stuhlmüller, Samuel Gershman, Noah D. Goodman |
CogSci | 3 |
| 2016 | Learning the Preferences of Ignorant, Inconsistent AgentsabstractAn important use of machine learning is to learn what people value. What posts or photos should a user be shown? Which jobs or activities would a person find rewarding? In each case, observations of people's past choices can inform our inferences about their likes and preferences. If we assume that choices are approximately optimal according to some utility function, we can treat preference inference as Bayesian inverse planning. That is, given a prior on utility functions and some observed choices, we invert an optimal decision-making process to infer a posterior distribution on utility functions. However, people often deviate from approximate optimality. They have false beliefs, their planning is sub-optimal, and their choices may be temporally inconsistent due to hyperbolic discounting and other biases. We demonstrate how to incorporate these deviations into algorithms for preference inference by constructing generative models of planning for agents who are subject to false beliefs and time inconsistency. We explore the inferences these models make about preferences, beliefs, and biases. We present a behavioral experiment in which human subjects perform preference inference given the same observations of choices as our model. Results show that human subjects (like our model) explain choices in terms of systematic deviations from optimal behavior and suggest that they take such deviations into account when inferring preferences. Owain Evans, Andreas Stuhlmüller, Noah D. Goodman |
AAAI | 2 |
| 2016 | C3: Lightweight Incrementalized MCMC for Probabilistic Programs using Continuations and Callsite CachingabstractLightweight, source-to-source transformation approaches to implementing MCMC for probabilistic programming languages are popular for their simplicity, support of existing deterministic code, and ability to execute on existing fast runtimes. However, they are also inefficient, requiring a complete re-execution of the program on every Metropolis Hastings proposal. We present a new extension to the lightweight approach, C3, which enables efficient, incrementalized re-execution of MH proposals. C3 is based on two core ideas: transforming probabilistic programs into continuation passing style (CPS), and caching the results of function calls. It is particularly effective at speeding up recursive programs with many local latent variables. We show that on several common models, C3 reduces proposal runtime by 20-100x, in some cases reducing runtime complexity from linear in model size to constant. We also demonstrate nearly an order of magnitude speedup on a complex inverse procedural modeling application. Daniel Ritchie 0001, Andreas Stuhlmüller, Noah D. Goodman |
AISTATS | 2 |
| 2015 | Why do you ask? Good questions provoke informative answers
Robert D. Hawkins, Andreas Stuhlmüller, Judith Degen, Noah D. Goodman |
CogSci | 2 |
| 2014 | Learning physical theories from dynamical scenes
Tomer D. Ullman, Andreas Stuhlmüller, Noah D. Goodman, Josh Tenenbaum |
CogSci | 2 |
| 2013 | Learning Stochastic InversesabstractWe describe a class of algorithms for amortized inference in Bayesian networks. In this setting, we invest computation upfront to support rapid online inference for a wide range of queries. Our approach is based on learning an inverse factorization of a model's joint distribution: a factorization that turns observations into root nodes. Our algorithms accumulate information to estimate the local conditional distributions that constitute such a factorization. These stochastic inverses can be used to invert each of the computation steps leading to an observation, sampling backwards in order to quickly find a likely explanation. We show that estimated inverses converge asymptotically in number of (prior or posterior) training samples. To make use of inverses before convergence, we describe the Inverse MCMC algorithm, which uses stochastic inverses to make block proposals for a Metropolis-Hastings sampler. We explore the efficiency of this sampler for a variety of parameter regimes and Bayes nets. Andreas Stuhlmüller, Jessica Taylor, Noah D. Goodman |
NIPS | 1 |
| 2012 | Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition
Noah D. Goodman, Andreas Stuhlmüller |
CogSci | 2 |
| 2012 | Probabilistic generative models for counterfactual reasoning and blame attribution
John McCoy, Tomer D. Ullman, Andreas Stuhlmüller, Tobias Gerstenberg, Josh Tenenbaum |
CogSci | 3 |
| 2011 | Nonstandard Interpretations of Probabilistic Programs for Efficient InferenceabstractProbabilistic programming languages allow modelers to specify a stochastic process using syntax that resembles modern programming languages. Because the program is in machine-readable format, a variety of techniques from compiler design and program analysis can be used to examine the structure of the distribution represented by the probabilistic program. We show how nonstandard interpretations of probabilistic programs can be used to craft efficient inference algorithms: information about the structure of a distribution (such as gradients or dependencies) is generated as a monad-like side computation while executing the program. These interpretations can be easily coded using special-purpose objects and operator overloading. We implement two examples of nonstandard interpretations in two different languages, and use them as building blocks to construct inference algorithms: automatic differentiation, which enables gradient based methods, and provenance tracking, which enables efficient construction of global proposals. David Wingate, Noah D. Goodman, Andreas Stuhlmüller, Jeffrey Mark Siskind |
NIPS | 3 |