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

Jesse Hostetler

dblp:84/10890 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
7ranked-venue papers
4as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0002-1757-7493ORCID · corroborated

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 4 first-author · 3 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 1 first-author · 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
2 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 33% Information extraction and text analysis · 33% Reinforcement learning · 25%
Network and information security
1 paper
Privacy and data protection · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
model auditing
0.812024
AI Evaluation Authorities: A Case Study Mapping Model Audits to Persistent Standards · AAAI 2024
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
named entity recognition
0.812024
AI Evaluation Authorities: A Case Study Mapping Model Audits to Persistent Standards · AAAI 2024
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
markov decision process
0.212014
State Aggregation in Monte Carlo Tree Search · AAAI 2014
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › game tree search
monte carlo tree search
0.212014
State Aggregation in Monte Carlo Tree Search · AAAI 2014
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › function approximation
state aggregation
0.212014
State Aggregation in Monte Carlo Tree Search · AAAI 2014
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
value function approximation
0.212014
State Aggregation in Monte Carlo Tree Search · AAAI 2014

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

security model · 1.5open-source evaluation infrastructure · 1.5sparse sampling · 0.2expectimax search · 0.2UCT · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 AI Evaluation Authorities: A Case Study Mapping Model Audits to Persistent Standards
abstract
Intelligent system audits are labor-intensive assurance activities that are typically performed once and discarded along with the opportunity to programmatically test all similar products for the market. This study illustrates how several incidents (i.e., harms) involving Named Entity Recognition (NER) can be prevented by scaling up a previously-performed audit of NER systems. The audit instrument's diagnostic capacity is maintained through a security model that protects the underlying data (i.e., addresses Goodhart's Law). An open-source evaluation infrastructure is released along with an example derived from a real-world audit that reports aggregated findings without exposing the underlying data.
Arihant Chadda, Sean McGregor, Jesse Hostetler, Andrea Brennen
AAAI3
2023 A domain-agnostic approach for characterization of lifelong learning systems
Megan M. Baker, Alexander New, Mario Aguilar-Simon, Ziad Al-Halah, Sébastien M. R. Arnold, Eseoghene Benjamin, Andrew P. Brna, Ethan Brooks, Ryan C. Brown, Zachary A. Daniels, Anurag Reddy Daram, Fabien Delattre, Ryan Dellana, Eric Eaton, Haotian Fu, Kristen Grauman, Jesse Hostetler, Shariq Iqbal, Cassandra Kent, Nicholas Ketz, Soheil Kolouri, George Dimitri Konidaris, Dhireesha Kudithipudi, Erik G. Learned-Miller, Michael L. Littman, Sandeep Madireddy, Jorge A. Mendez, Eric Q. Nguyen, Christine D. Piatko, Praveen K. Pilly, Aswin Raghavan, Abrar Rahman, Santhosh K. Ramakrishnan, Neale Ratzlaff, Andrea Soltoggio, Peter Stone 0001, Indranil Sur, Zhipeng Tang, Saket Tiwari, Kyle Vedder, Felix Wang, Zifan Xu, Angel Yanguas-Gil, Harel Yedidsion, Shangqun Yu, Gautam K. Vallabha
Neural Networks17
2022 Dynamically throttleable neural networks
Hengyue Liu, Samyak Parajuli, Jesse Hostetler, Sek M. Chai, Bir Bhanu
Mach. Vis. Appl.3
2017 Sample-Based Tree Search with Fixed and Adaptive State Abstractions
abstract
Sample-based tree search (SBTS) is an approach to solving Markov decision problems based on constructing a lookahead search tree using random samples from a generative model of the MDP. It encompasses Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) algorithms like UCT as well as algorithms such as sparse sampling. SBTS is well-suited to solving MDPs with large state spaces due to the relative insensitivity of SBTS algorithms to the size of the state space. The limiting factor in the performance of SBTS tends to be the exponential dependence of sample complexity on the depth of the search tree. The number of samples required to build a search tree is O((|A|B)^d), where |A| is the number of available actions, B is the number of possible random outcomes of taking an action, and d is the depth of the tree. State abstraction can be used to reduce B by aggregating random outcomes together into abstract states. Recent work has shown that abstract tree search often performs substantially better than tree search conducted in the ground state space. This paper presents a theoretical and empirical evaluation of tree search with both fixed and adaptive state abstractions. We derive a bound on regret due to state abstraction in tree search that decomposes abstraction error into three components arising from properties of the abstraction and the search algorithm. We describe versions of popular SBTS algorithms that use fixed state abstractions, and we introduce the Progressive Abstraction Refinement in Sparse Sampling (PARSS) algorithm, which adapts its abstraction during search. We evaluate PARSS as well as sparse sampling with fixed abstractions on 12 experimental problems, and find that PARSS outperforms search with a fixed abstraction and that search with even highly inaccurate fixed abstractions outperforms search without abstraction. These results establish progressive abstraction refinement as a promising basis for new tree search algorithms, and we propose directions for future work within the progressive refinement framework.
Jesse Hostetler, Alan Fern, Thomas G. Dietterich
J. Artif. Intell. Res.1
2015 Progressive Abstraction Refinement for Sparse Sampling
Jesse Hostetler, Alan Fern, Thomas G. Dietterich
UAI1
2014 State Aggregation in Monte Carlo Tree Search
abstract
Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) algorithms are a popular approach to online decision-making in Markov decision processes (MDPs). These algorithms can, however, perform poorly in MDPs with high stochastic branching factors. In this paper, we study state aggregation as a way of reducing stochastic branching in tree search. Prior work has studied formal properties of MDP state aggregation in the context of dynamic programming and reinforcement learning, but little attention has been paid to state aggregation in MCTS. Our main result is a performance loss bound for a class of value function-based state aggregation criteria in expectimax search trees. We also consider how to construct MCTS algorithms that operate in the abstract state space but require a simulator of the ground dynamics only. We find that trajectory sampling algorithms like UCT can be adapted easily, but that sparse sampling algorithms present difficulties. As a proof of concept, we experimentally confirm that state aggregation can improve the finite-sample performance of UCT.
Jesse Hostetler, Alan Fern, Thomas G. Dietterich
AAAI1
2012 Inferring Strategies from Limited Reconnaissance in Real-time Strategy Games
Jesse Hostetler, Ethan W. Dereszynski, Thomas G. Dietterich, Alan Fern
UAI1