Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
David P. Reichert
dblp:76/9736
· DBLP profile ↗
9ranked-venue papers
4as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 8 · 3 first-author · 1 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author
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
7 papers |
Reinforcement learning · 44% Learning paradigms · 26% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 9% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
2 papers |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% |
Topics — the 13 heaviest of 17, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-based reinforcement learning |
0.6 | 2 | 2017 | Imagination-Augmented Agents for Deep Reinforcement Learning · NIPS 2017 The Predictron: End-To-End Learning and Planning · ICML 2017 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
neuro-symbolic reasoning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Making sense of raw input · Artif. Intell. 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › unsupervised learning
unsupervised structure learning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Making sense of raw input · Artif. Intell. 2021 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › curriculum learning
automatic curriculum generation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Automated curriculum generation through setter-solver interactions · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
curriculum learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Automated curriculum generation through setter-solver interactions · ICLR 2020 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
deep reinforcement learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Deep reinforcement learning with relational inductive biases · ICLR (Poster) 2019 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › structured representation learning
relational representation learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Deep reinforcement learning with relational inductive biases · ICLR (Poster) 2019 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-free reinforcement learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Imagination-Augmented Agents for Deep Reinforcement Learning · NIPS 2017 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
policy learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Imagination-Augmented Agents for Deep Reinforcement Learning · NIPS 2017 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
value prediction |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | The Predictron: End-To-End Learning and Planning · ICML 2017 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › deep generative model
deep boltzmann machine |
0.2 | 2 | 2011 | Neuronal Adaptation for Sampling-Based Probabilistic Inference in Perceptual Bistability · NIPS 2011 Hallucinations in Charles Bonnet Syndrome Induced by Homeostasis: a Deep Boltzmann Machine Model · NIPS 2010 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › model-based reinforcement learning › model-based planning
planning with learned models |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Imagination-Augmented Agents for Deep Reinforcement Learning · NIPS 2017 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology
computational neuroscience |
0.1 | 2 | 2011 | Neuronal Adaptation for Sampling-Based Probabilistic Inference in Perceptual Bistability · NIPS 2011 Hallucinations in Charles Bonnet Syndrome Induced by Homeostasis: a Deep Boltzmann Machine Model · NIPS 2010 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
neural network · 0.5logic program · 0.5SAT solving · 0.5reinforcement learning · 0.4relational inductive bias · 0.4graph neural network · 0.4value function approximation · 0.3markov reward process · 0.3end-to-end learning · 0.3deep policy network · 0.3deep boltzmann machine · 0.2neuronal adaptation · 0.1markov chain monte carlo · 0.1homeostatic plasticity · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Making sense of raw inputabstractHow should a machine intelligence perform unsupervised structure discovery over streams of sensory input? One approach to this problem is to cast it as an apperception task [1]. Here, the task is to construct an explicit interpretable theory that both explains the sensory sequence and also satisfies a set of unity conditions, designed to ensure that the constituents of the theory are connected in a relational structure. However, the original formulation of the apperception task had one fundamental limitation: it assumed the raw sensory input had already been parsed using a set of discrete categories, so that all the system had to do was receive this already-digested symbolic input, and make sense of it. But what if we don't have access to pre-parsed input? What if our sensory sequence is raw unprocessed information? The central contribution of this paper is a neuro-symbolic framework for distilling interpretable theories out of streams of raw, unprocessed sensory experience. First, we extend the definition of the apperception task to include ambiguous (but still symbolic) input: sequences of sets of disjunctions. Next, we use a neural network to map raw sensory input to disjunctive input. Our binary neural network is encoded as a logic program, so the weights of the network and the rules of the theory can be solved jointly as a single SAT problem. This way, we are able to jointly learn how to perceive (mapping raw sensory information to concepts) and apperceive (combining concepts into declarative rules). Richard Evans 0001, Matko Bosnjak, Lars Buesing, Kevin Ellis, David P. Reichert, Pushmeet Kohli, Marek J. Sergot |
Artif. Intell. | 5 |
| 2020 | Automated curriculum generation through setter-solver interactions
Sébastien Racanière, Andrew K. Lampinen, Adam Santoro, David P. Reichert, Vlad Firoiu, Timothy P. Lillicrap |
ICLR | 4 |
| 2019 | Deep reinforcement learning with relational inductive biases
Vinícius Flores Zambaldi, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Victor Bapst, Yujia Li 0001, Igor Babuschkin, Karl Tuyls, David P. Reichert, Timothy P. Lillicrap, Edward Lockhart, Murray Shanahan, Victoria Langston, Razvan Pascanu, Matt M. Botvinick, Oriol Vinyals, Peter W. Battaglia |
ICLR (Poster) | 8 |
| 2017 | The Predictron: End-To-End Learning and PlanningabstractOne of the key challenges of artificial intelligence is to learn models that are effective in the context of planning. In this document we introduce the predictron architecture. The predictron consists of a fully abstract model, represented by a Markov reward process, that can be rolled forward multiple “imagined” planning steps. Each forward pass of the predictron accumulates internal rewards and values over multiple planning depths. The predictron is trained end-to-end so as to make these accumulated values accurately approximate the true value function. We applied the predictron to procedurally generated random mazes and a simulator for the game of pool. The predictron yielded significantly more accurate predictions than conventional deep neural network architectures. David Silver 0001, Hado van Hasselt, Matteo Hessel, Tom Schaul, Arthur Guez, Tim Harley, Gabriel Dulac-Arnold, David P. Reichert, Neil C. Rabinowitz, André Barreto 0001, Thomas Degris |
ICML | 8 |
| 2017 | Imagination-Augmented Agents for Deep Reinforcement LearningabstractWe introduce Imagination-Augmented Agents (I2As), a novel architecture for deep reinforcement learning combining model-free and model-based aspects. In contrast to most existing model-based reinforcement learning and planning methods, which prescribe how a model should be used to arrive at a policy, I2As learn to interpret predictions from a trained environment model to construct implicit plans in arbitrary ways, by using the predictions as additional context in deep policy networks. I2As show improved data efficiency, performance, and robustness to model misspecification compared to several strong baselines. Sébastien Racanière, Theophane Weber, David P. Reichert, Lars Buesing, Arthur Guez, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Adrià Puigdomènech Badia, Oriol Vinyals, Nicolas Heess, Yujia Li 0001, Razvan Pascanu, Peter W. Battaglia, Demis Hassabis, David Silver 0001, Daan Wierstra |
NIPS | 3 |
| 2013 | Charles Bonnet Syndrome: Evidence for a Generative Model in the Cortex?abstractSeveral theories propose that the cortex implements an internal model to explain, predict, and learn about sensory data, but the nature of this model is unclear. One condition that could be highly informative here is Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS), where loss of vision leads to complex, vivid visual hallucinations of objects, people, and whole scenes. CBS could be taken as indication that there is a generative model in the brain, specifically one that can synthesise rich, consistent visual representations even in the absence of actual visual input. The processes that lead to CBS are poorly understood. Here, we argue that a model recently introduced in machine learning, the deep Boltzmann machine (DBM), could capture the relevant aspects of (hypothetical) generative processing in the cortex. The DBM carries both the semantics of a probabilistic generative model and of a neural network. The latter allows us to model a concrete neural mechanism that could underlie CBS, namely, homeostatic regulation of neuronal activity. We show that homeostatic plasticity could serve to make the learnt internal model robust against e.g. degradation of sensory input, but overcompensate in the case of CBS, leading to hallucinations. We demonstrate how a wide range of features of CBS can be explained in the model and suggest a potential role for the neuromodulator acetylcholine. This work constitutes the first concrete computational model of CBS and the first application of the DBM as a model in computational neuroscience. Our results lend further credence to the hypothesis of a generative model in the brain. David P. Reichert, Peggy Seriès, Amos J. Storkey |
PLoS Comput. Biol. | 1 |
| 2011 | A Hierarchical Generative Model of Recurrent Object-Based Attention in the Visual Cortex
David P. Reichert, Peggy Seriès, Amos J. Storkey |
ICANN (1) | 1 |
| 2011 | Neuronal Adaptation for Sampling-Based Probabilistic Inference in Perceptual BistabilityabstractIt has been argued that perceptual multistability reflects probabilistic inference performed by the brain when sensory input is ambiguous. Alternatively, more traditional explanations of multistability refer to low-level mechanisms such as neuronal adaptation. We employ a Deep Boltzmann Machine (DBM) model of cortical processing to demonstrate that these two different approaches can be combined in the same framework. Based on recent developments in machine learning, we show how neuronal adaptation can be understood as a mechanism that improves probabilistic, sampling-based inference. Using the ambiguous Necker cube image, we analyze the perceptual switching exhibited by the model. We also examine the influence of spatial attention, and explore how binocular rivalry can be modeled with the same approach. Our work joins earlier studies in demonstrating how the principles underlying DBMs relate to cortical processing, and offers novel perspectives on the neural implementation of approximate probabilistic inference in the brain. David P. Reichert, Peggy Seriès, Amos J. Storkey |
NIPS | 1 |
| 2010 | Hallucinations in Charles Bonnet Syndrome Induced by Homeostasis: a Deep Boltzmann Machine ModelabstractThe Charles Bonnet Syndrome (CBS) is characterized by complex vivid visual hallucinations in people with, primarily, eye diseases and no other neurological pathology. We present a Deep Boltzmann Machine model of CBS, exploring two core hypotheses: First, that the visual cortex learns a generative or predictive model of sensory input, thus explaining its capability to generate internal imagery. And second, that homeostatic mechanisms stabilize neuronal activity levels, leading to hallucinations being formed when input is lacking. We reproduce a variety of qualitative findings in CBS. We also introduce a modification to the DBM that allows us to model a possible role of acetylcholine in CBS as mediating the balance of feed-forward and feed-back processing. Our model might provide new insights into CBS and also demonstrates that generative frameworks are promising as hypothetical models of cortical learning and perception. David P. Reichert, Peggy Seriès, Amos J. Storkey |
NIPS | 1 |