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

Tobias Sommer Thune

dblp:223/4400 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as 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 · 3 · 2 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
3 papers
Reinforcement learning · 43% Efficient and distributed learning · 36% Learning theory · 21%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
multi-armed bandit
0.722019
Nonstochastic Multiarmed Bandits with Unrestricted Delays · NeurIPS 2019
Adaptation to Easy Data in Prediction with Limited Advice · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
active learning
0.512021
Online Active Learning with Surrogate Loss Functions · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › active learning
label complexity
0.512021
Online Active Learning with Surrogate Loss Functions · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning
regret bounds
0.422019
Adaptation to Easy Data in Prediction with Limited Advice · NeurIPS 2018
Nonstochastic Multiarmed Bandits with Unrestricted Delays · NeurIPS 2019
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
delayed feedback
0.412019
Nonstochastic Multiarmed Bandits with Unrestricted Delays · NeurIPS 2019
Machine learning › Learning theory › empirical risk minimization
surrogate risk minimization
0.112021
Online Active Learning with Surrogate Loss Functions · NeurIPS 2021

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

weak labels · 0.5uncertainty sampling · 0.5margin algorithm · 0.5doubling scheme · 0.4EXP3 · 0.4second order difference adjustments · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Online Active Learning with Surrogate Loss Functions
abstract
We derive a novel active learning algorithm in the streaming setting for binary classification tasks. The algorithm leverages weak labels to minimize the number of label requests, and trains a model to optimize a surrogate loss on a resulting set of labeled and weak-labeled points. Our algorithm jointly admits two crucial properties: theoretical guarantees in the general agnostic setting and a strong empirical performance. Our theoretical analysis shows that the algorithm attains favorable generalization and label complexity bounds, while our empirical study on 18 real-world datasets demonstrate that the algorithm outperforms standard baselines, including the Margin Algorithm, or Uncertainty Sampling, a high-performing active learning algorithm favored by practitioners.
Giulia DeSalvo, Claudio Gentile, Tobias Sommer Thune
NeurIPS3
2019 Nonstochastic Multiarmed Bandits with Unrestricted Delays
abstract
We investigate multiarmed bandits with delayed feedback, where the delays need neither be identical nor bounded. We first prove that "delayed" Exp3 achieves the $O(\sqrt{(KT + D)\ln K})$ regret bound conjectured by Cesa-Bianchi et al. [2016] in the case of variable, but bounded delays. Here, $K$ is the number of actions and $D$ is the total delay over $T$ rounds. We then introduce a new algorithm that lifts the requirement of bounded delays by using a wrapper that skips rounds with excessively large delays. The new algorithm maintains the same regret bound, but similar to its predecessor requires prior knowledge of $D$ and $T$. For this algorithm we then construct a novel doubling scheme that forgoes the prior knowledge requirement under the assumption that the delays are available at action time (rather than at loss observation time). This assumption is satisfied in a broad range of applications, including interaction with servers and service providers. The resulting oracle regret bound is of order $\min_\beta (|S_\beta|+\beta \ln K + (KT + D_\beta)/\beta)$, where $|S_\beta|$ is the number of observations with delay exceeding $\beta$, and $D_\beta$ is the total delay of observations with delay below $\beta$. The bound relaxes to $O(\sqrt{(KT + D)\ln K})$, but we also provide examples where $D_\beta \ll D$ and the oracle bound has a polynomially better dependence on the problem parameters.
Tobias Sommer Thune, Nicolò Cesa-Bianchi, Yevgeny Seldin
NeurIPS1
2018 Adaptation to Easy Data in Prediction with Limited Advice
abstract
We derive an online learning algorithm with improved regret guarantees for ``easy'' loss sequences. We consider two types of ``easiness'': (a) stochastic loss sequences and (b) adversarial loss sequences with small effective range of the losses. While a number of algorithms have been proposed for exploiting small effective range in the full information setting, Gerchinovitz and Lattimore [2016] have shown the impossibility of regret scaling with the effective range of the losses in the bandit setting. We show that just one additional observation per round is sufficient to circumvent the impossibility result. The proposed Second Order Difference Adjustments (SODA) algorithm requires no prior knowledge of the effective range of the losses, $\varepsilon$, and achieves an $O(\varepsilon \sqrt{KT \ln K}) + \tilde{O}(\varepsilon K \sqrt[4]{T})$ expected regret guarantee, where $T$ is the time horizon and $K$ is the number of actions. The scaling with the effective loss range is achieved under significantly weaker assumptions than those made by Cesa-Bianchi and Shamir [2018] in an earlier attempt to circumvent the impossibility result. We also provide a regret lower bound of $\Omega(\varepsilon\sqrt{T K})$, which almost matches the upper bound. In addition, we show that in the stochastic setting SODA achieves an $O\left(\sum_{a:\Delta_a>0} \frac{K\varepsilon^2}{\Delta_a}\right)$ pseudo-regret bound that holds simultaneously with the adversarial regret guarantee. In other words, SODA is safe against an unrestricted oblivious adversary and provides improved regret guarantees for at least two different types of ``easiness'' simultaneously.
Tobias Sommer Thune, Yevgeny Seldin
NeurIPS1