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

Ryan Faulkner 0001

dblp:159/6155 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
0as 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 · 4 · 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
4 papers
Reinforcement learning · 48% Deep learning architectures and training · 36% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 10%

Topics — the 11 heaviest of 13, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
exploration
0.512021
Rapid Task-Solving in Novel Environments · ICLR 2021
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
generalization in reinforcement learning
0.412019
Generalization of Reinforcement Learners with Working and Episodic Memory · NeurIPS 2019
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › partially observable reinforcement learning
memory-based reinforcement learning
0.412019
Generalization of Reinforcement Learners with Working and Episodic Memory · NeurIPS 2019
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › temporal reasoning
temporal representation
0.412019
Interval timing in deep reinforcement learning agents · NeurIPS 2019
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
attention mechanism
0.312018
Relational recurrent neural networks · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
memory-augmented neural networks
0.312018
Relational recurrent neural networks · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › attention mechanism
multi-head attention
0.312018
Relational recurrent neural networks · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
recurrent neural network
0.312018
Relational recurrent neural networks · NeurIPS 2018
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems
agent architecture
0.112019
Generalization of Reinforcement Learners with Working and Episodic Memory · NeurIPS 2019
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
language modeling
0.112018
Relational recurrent neural networks · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
partially observable reinforcement learning
0.112018
Relational recurrent neural networks · NeurIPS 2018

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

working memory · 0.4recurrent neural network · 0.4feedforward neural network · 0.4episodic memory · 0.4ablation study · 0.4relational reasoning · 0.3dot product attention · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Rapid Task-Solving in Novel Environments
Samuel Ritter, Ryan Faulkner 0001, Laurent Sartran, Adam Santoro, Matt M. Botvinick, David Raposo
ICLR2
2019 Interval timing in deep reinforcement learning agents
abstract
The measurement of time is central to intelligent behavior. We know that both animals and artificial agents can successfully use temporal dependencies to select actions. In artificial agents, little work has directly addressed (1) which architectural components are necessary for successful development of this ability, (2) how this timing ability comes to be represented in the units and actions of the agent, and (3) whether the resulting behavior of the system converges on solutions similar to those of biology. Here we studied interval timing abilities in deep reinforcement learning agents trained end-to-end on an interval reproduction paradigm inspired by experimental literature on mechanisms of timing. We characterize the strategies developed by recurrent and feedforward agents, which both succeed at temporal reproduction using distinct mechanisms, some of which bear specific and intriguing similarities to biological systems. These findings advance our understanding of how agents come to represent time, and they highlight the value of experimentally inspired approaches to characterizing agent abilities.
Ben Deverett, Ryan Faulkner 0001, Meire Fortunato, Greg Wayne, Joel Z. Leibo
NeurIPS2
2019 Generalization of Reinforcement Learners with Working and Episodic Memory
abstract
Memory is an important aspect of intelligence and plays a role in many deep reinforcement learning models. However, little progress has been made in understanding when specific memory systems help more than others and how well they generalize. The field also has yet to see a prevalent consistent and rigorous approach for evaluating agent performance on holdout data. In this paper, we aim to develop a comprehensive methodology to test different kinds of memory in an agent and assess how well the agent can apply what it learns in training to a holdout set that differs from the training set along dimensions that we suggest are relevant for evaluating memory-specific generalization. To that end, we first construct a diverse set of memory tasks that allow us to evaluate test-time generalization across multiple dimensions. Second, we develop and perform multiple ablations on an agent architecture that combines multiple memory systems, observe its baseline models, and investigate its performance against the task suite.
Meire Fortunato, Melissa Tan, Ryan Faulkner 0001, Steven Hansen 0001, Adrià Puigdomènech Badia, Gavin Buttimore, Charlie Deck, Joel Z. Leibo, Charles Blundell
NeurIPS3
2018 Relational recurrent neural networks
abstract
Memory-based neural networks model temporal data by leveraging an ability to remember information for long periods. It is unclear, however, whether they also have an ability to perform complex relational reasoning with the information they remember. Here, we first confirm our intuitions that standard memory architectures may struggle at tasks that heavily involve an understanding of the ways in which entities are connected -- i.e., tasks involving relational reasoning. We then improve upon these deficits by using a new memory module -- a Relational Memory Core (RMC) -- which employs multi-head dot product attention to allow memories to interact. Finally, we test the RMC on a suite of tasks that may profit from more capable relational reasoning across sequential information, and show large gains in RL domains (BoxWorld & Mini PacMan), program evaluation, and language modeling, achieving state-of-the-art results on the WikiText-103, Project Gutenberg, and GigaWord datasets.
Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner 0001, David Raposo, Jack W. Rae, Mike Chrzanowski, Theophane Weber, Daan Wierstra, Oriol Vinyals, Razvan Pascanu, Timothy P. Lillicrap
NeurIPS2