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.

Peter Welinder

dblp:76/8107 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
10ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 8 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 4 · 1 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 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
6 papers
Reinforcement learning · 30% Language models and text generation · 30% Motion planning and robot control · 15%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers
Data mining · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers
Collaborative and social computing · 79% Human-AI interaction · 21%

Topics — the 20 heaviest of 20, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
alignment
0.612022
Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback · NeurIPS 2022
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
instruction following
0.612022
Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback · NeurIPS 2022
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
reinforcement learning from human feedback
0.612022
Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback · NeurIPS 2022
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › robot learning › manipulation task learning
goal-conditioned manipulation
0.312017
Hindsight Experience Replay · NIPS 2017
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › off-policy reinforcement learning › experience replay
hindsight experience replay
0.312017
Hindsight Experience Replay · NIPS 2017
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › manipulator control
robot arm control
0.312017
Hindsight Experience Replay · NIPS 2017
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
sparse reward learning
0.312017
Hindsight Experience Replay · NIPS 2017
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › calibration
classifier calibration
0.212013
A Lazy Man's Approach to Benchmarking: Semisupervised Classifier Evaluation and Recalibration · CVPR 2013
Machine learning › Learning theory › classification
classifier evaluation
0.212013
A Lazy Man's Approach to Benchmarking: Semisupervised Classifier Evaluation and Recalibration · CVPR 2013
Data mining
clustering
0.112011
Crowdclustering · NIPS 2011
Data mining › clustering › interactive clustering
crowdsourced clustering
0.112011
Crowdclustering · NIPS 2011
Collaborative and social computing
crowdsourcing
0.112011
Crowdclustering · NIPS 2011
Computer vision › Face, body and person analysis
human pose estimation
0.112010
Cascaded pose regression · CVPR 2010
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models
latent variable model
0.112010
The Multidimensional Wisdom of Crowds · NIPS 2010
Computer vision › 3D vision
object pose estimation
0.112010
Cascaded pose regression · CVPR 2010
Computer vision › 3D vision
pose estimation
0.112010
Cascaded pose regression · CVPR 2010
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
visual recognition
0.112010
Visual Recognition with Humans in the Loop · ECCV (4) 2010
Data mining
crowdsourcing
0.112010
The Multidimensional Wisdom of Crowds · NIPS 2010
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
image classification
0.012010
The Multidimensional Wisdom of Crowds · NIPS 2010
Human-AI interaction
human-in-the-loop
0.012010
Visual Recognition with Humans in the Loop · ECCV (4) 2010

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

supervised fine-tuning · 0.6reinforcement learning from human feedback · 0.6off-policy reinforcement learning · 0.3implicit curriculum · 0.3variational inference · 0.2bayesian modeling · 0.2probabilistic modeling · 0.2human-in-the-loop recognition · 0.2expectation-maximization · 0.2generative model · 0.2confidence score modeling · 0.2cascaded regression · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback
abstract
Making language models bigger does not inherently make them better at following a user's intent. For example, large language models can generate outputs that are untruthful, toxic, or simply not helpful to the user. In other words, these models are not aligned with their users. In this paper, we show an avenue for aligning language models with user intent on a wide range of tasks by fine-tuning with human feedback. Starting with a set of labeler-written prompts and prompts submitted through a language model API, we collect a dataset of labeler demonstrations of the desired model behavior, which we use to fine-tune GPT-3 using supervised learning. We then collect a dataset of rankings of model outputs, which we use to further fine-tune this supervised model using reinforcement learning from human feedback. We call the resulting models InstructGPT. In human evaluations on our prompt distribution, outputs from the 1.3B parameter InstructGPT model are preferred to outputs from the 175B GPT-3, despite having 100x fewer parameters. Moreover, InstructGPT models show improvements in truthfulness and reductions in toxic output generation while having minimal performance regressions on public NLP datasets. Even though InstructGPT still makes simple mistakes, our results show that fine-tuning with human feedback is a promising direction for aligning language models with human intent.
Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu 0003, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, Ryan Lowe
NeurIPS17
2021 Sim2Real in Robotics and Automation: Applications and Challenges
abstract
To Perform reliably and consistently over sustained periods of time, large-scale automation critically relies on computer simulation. Simulation allows us and supervisory AI to effectively design, validate, and continuously improve complex processes, and helps practitioners to gain insight into the operation and justify future investments. While numerous successful applications of simulation in industry exist, such as circuit simulation, finite element methods, and computeraided design (CAD), state-of-the-art simulators fall short of accurately modeling physical phenomena, such as friction, impact, and deformation.
Sebastian Höfer, Kostas E. Bekris, Ankur Handa, Juan Camilo Gamboa, Melissa Mozifian, Florian Golemo, Christopher G. Atkeson, Dieter Fox, Kenneth Y. Goldberg, John J. Leonard, C. Karen Liu, Jan Peters 0001, Shuran Song, Peter Welinder, Martha White
IEEE Trans Autom. Sci. Eng.14
2018 Domain Randomization and Generative Models for Robotic Grasping
abstract
Deep learning-based robotic grasping has made significant progress thanks to algorithmic improvements and increased data availability. However, state-of-the-art models are often trained on as few as hundreds or thousands of unique object instances, and as a result generalization can be a challenge. In this work, we explore a novel data generation pipeline for training a deep neural network to perform grasp planning that applies the idea of domain randomization to object synthesis. We generate millions of unique, unrealistic procedurally generated objects, and train a deep neural network to perform grasp planning on these objects. Since the distribution of successful grasps for a given object can be highly multimodal, we propose an autoregressive grasp planning model that maps sensor inputs of a scene to a probability distribution over possible grasps. This model allows us to sample grasps efficiently at test time (or avoid sampling entirely). We evaluate our model architecture and data generation pipeline in simulation and the real world. We find we can achieve a >90% success rate on previously unseen realistic objects at test time in simulation despite having only been trained on random objects. We also demonstrate an 80% success rate on real-world grasp attempts despite having only been trained on random simulated objects.
Josh Tobin, Lukas Biewald, Rocky Duan, Marcin Andrychowicz, Ankur Handa, Bob McGrew, Alex Ray, Jonas Schneider 0002, Peter Welinder, Wojciech Zaremba, Pieter Abbeel
IROS10
2017 Hindsight Experience Replay
abstract
Dealing with sparse rewards is one of the biggest challenges in Reinforcement Learning (RL). We present a novel technique called Hindsight Experience Replay which allows sample-efficient learning from rewards which are sparse and binary and therefore avoid the need for complicated reward engineering. It can be combined with an arbitrary off-policy RL algorithm and may be seen as a form of implicit curriculum. We demonstrate our approach on the task of manipulating objects with a robotic arm. In particular, we run experiments on three different tasks: pushing, sliding, and pick-and-place, in each case using only binary rewards indicating whether or not the task is completed. Our ablation studies show that Hindsight Experience Replay is a crucial ingredient which makes training possible in these challenging environments. We show that our policies trained on a physics simulation can be deployed on a physical robot and successfully complete the task. The video presenting our experiments is available at https://goo.gl/SMrQnI.
Marcin Andrychowicz, Dwight Crow, Alex Ray, Jonas Schneider 0002, Rachel Fong, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Josh Tobin, Pieter Abbeel, Wojciech Zaremba
NIPS6
2013 A Lazy Man's Approach to Benchmarking: Semisupervised Classifier Evaluation and Recalibration
abstract
How many labeled examples are needed to estimate a classifier's performance on a new dataset? We study the case where data is plentiful, but labels are expensive. We show that by making a few reasonable assumptions on the structure of the data, it is possible to estimate performance curves, with confidence bounds, using a small number of ground truth labels. Our approach, which we call Semi supervised Performance Evaluation (SPE), is based on a generative model for the classifier's confidence scores. In addition to estimating the performance of classifiers on new datasets, SPE can be used to recalibrate a classifier by re-estimating the class-conditional confidence distributions.
Peter Welinder, Max Welling, Pietro Perona
CVPR1
2011 Crowdclustering
abstract
Is it possible to crowdsource categorization? Amongst the challenges: (a) each annotator has only a partial view of the data, (b) different annotators may have different clustering criteria and may produce different numbers of categories, (c) the underlying category structure may be hierarchical. We propose a Bayesian model of how annotators may approach clustering and show how one may infer clusters/categories, as well as annotator parameters, using this model. Our experiments, carried out on large collections of images, suggest that Bayesian crowdclustering works well and may be superior to single-expert annotations.
Ryan Gomes, Peter Welinder, Andreas Krause 0001, Pietro Perona
NIPS2
2010 Cascaded pose regression
abstract
We present a fast and accurate algorithm for computing the 2D pose of objects in images called cascaded pose regression (CPR). CPR progressively refines a loosely specified initial guess, where each refinement is carried out by a different regressor. Each regressor performs simple image measurements that are dependent on the output of the previous regressors; the entire system is automatically learned from human annotated training examples. CPR is not restricted to rigid transformations: `pose' is any parameterized variation of the object's appearance such as the degrees of freedom of deformable and articulated objects. We compare CPR against both standard regression techniques and human performance (computed from redundant human annotations). Experiments on three diverse datasets (mice, faces, fish) suggest CPR is fast (2-3ms per pose estimate), accurate (approaching human performance), and easy to train from small amounts of labeled data.
Piotr Dollár, Peter Welinder, Pietro Perona
CVPR2
2010 Visual Recognition with Humans in the Loop
Steve Branson, Catherine Wah, Florian Schroff, Boris Babenko, Peter Welinder, Pietro Perona, Serge J. Belongie
ECCV (4)5
2010 The Multidimensional Wisdom of Crowds
abstract
Distributing labeling tasks among hundreds or thousands of annotators is an increasingly important method for annotating large datasets. We present a method for estimating the underlying value (e.g. the class) of each image from (noisy) annotations provided by multiple annotators. Our method is based on a model of the image formation and annotation process. Each image has different characteristics that are represented in an abstract Euclidean space. Each annotator is modeled as a multidimensional entity with variables representing competence, expertise and bias. This allows the model to discover and represent groups of annotators that have different sets of skills and knowledge, as well as groups of images that differ qualitatively. We find that our model predicts ground truth labels on both synthetic and real data more accurately than state of the art methods. Experiments also show that our model, starting from a set of binary labels, may discover rich information, such as different "schools of thought" amongst the annotators, and can group together images belonging to separate categories.
Peter Welinder, Steve Branson, Serge J. Belongie, Pietro Perona
NIPS1
2009 Automatic discovery of image families: Global vs. local features
abstract
Gathering a large collection of images has been made quite easy by social and image sharing websites, e.g. flickr.com. However, using such collections faces the problem that they contain a large number of duplicates and highly similar images. This work tackles the problem of how to automatically organize image collections into sets of similar images, called image families hereinafter. We thoroughly compare the performance of two approaches to measure image similarity: global descriptors vs. a set of local descriptors. We assess the performance of these approaches as the problem scales up to thousands of images and hundreds of families. We present our results on a new dataset of CD/DVD game covers.
Mohamed Aly 0001, Peter Welinder, Mario E. Munich, Pietro Perona
ICIP2