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

Ally Yalei Du

dblp:378/3939 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 3 first-author · 3 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
Reinforcement learning · 44% Trustworthy machine learning · 44% Learning theory · 11%

Topics — the 9 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
calibration
0.912025
Reconciling Model Multiplicity for Downstream Decision Making · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.912025
Reconciling Model Multiplicity for Downstream Decision Making · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
function approximation
0.912025
Misspecified Q-Learning with Sparse Linear Function Approximation: Tight Bounds on Approximation Error · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
model multiplicity
0.912025
Reconciling Model Multiplicity for Downstream Decision Making · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness › fairness criteria
multicalibration
0.912025
Reconciling Model Multiplicity for Downstream Decision Making · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › value-based reinforcement learning
q-learning
0.912025
Misspecified Q-Learning with Sparse Linear Function Approximation: Tight Bounds on Approximation Error · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
reinforcement learning theory
0.912025
Misspecified Q-Learning with Sparse Linear Function Approximation: Tight Bounds on Approximation Error · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Learning theory
sample complexity
0.912025
Misspecified Q-Learning with Sparse Linear Function Approximation: Tight Bounds on Approximation Error · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
value-based reinforcement learning
0.912025
Misspecified Q-Learning with Sparse Linear Function Approximation: Tight Bounds on Approximation Error · ICLR 2025

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

multicalibration · 0.9lower bound analysis · 0.9elimination-based algorithm · 0.9calibration algorithm · 0.9bellman backup · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Misspecified Q-Learning with Sparse Linear Function Approximation: Tight Bounds on Approximation Error
abstract
The recent work by Dong and Yang (2023) showed for misspecified sparse linear bandits, one can obtain an $O(\epsilon)$-optimal policy using a polynomial number of samples when the sparsity is a constant, where $\epsilon$ is the misspecification error. This result is in sharp contrast to misspecified linear bandits without sparsity, which require an exponential number of samples to get the same guarantee. In order to study whether the analog result is possible in the reinforcement learning setting, we consider the following problem: assuming the optimal $Q$-function is a $d$-dimensional linear function with sparsity $k$ and misspecification error $\epsilon$, whether we can obtain an $O(\epsilon)$-optimal policy using number of samples polynomially in the feature dimension $d$. We first demonstrate why the standard approach based on Bellman backup or the existing optimistic value function elimination approach such as OLIVE (Jiang et al., 2017) achieves suboptimal guarantees for this problem. We then design a novel elimination-based algorithm to show one can obtain an $O(H\epsilon)$-optimal policy with sample complexity polynomially in the feature dimension $d$ and planning horizon $H$. Lastly, we complement our upper bound with an $\tilde \Omega(H\epsilon)$ suboptimality lower bound, giving a complete picture of this problem.
Ally Yalei Du, Lin Yang 0011, Ruosong Wang
ICLR1
2025 Reconciling Model Multiplicity for Downstream Decision Making
abstract
We consider the problem of model multiplicity in downstream decision-making, a setting where two predictive models of equivalent accuracy cannot agree on what action to take for a downstream decision-making problem. Prior work attempts to address model multiplicity by resolving prediction disagreement between models. However, we show that even when the two predictive models approximately agree on their individual predictions almost everywhere, these models can lead the downstream decision-maker to take actions with substantially higher losses. We address this issue by proposing a framework that calibrates the predictive models with respect to both a finite set of downstream decision-making problems and the individual probability prediction. Specifically, leveraging tools from multi-calibration, we provide an algorithm that, at each time-step, first reconciles the differences in individual probability prediction, then calibrates the updated models such that they are indistinguishable from the true probability distribution to the decision-makers. We extend our results to the setting where one does not have direct access to the true probability distribution and instead relies on a set of i.i.d data to be the empirical distribution. Furthermore, we generalize our results to the settings where one has more than two predictive models and an infinitely large downstream action set. Finally, we provide a set of experiments to evaluate our methods empirically. Compared to existing work, our proposed algorithm creates a pair of predictive models with improved downstream decision-making losses and agrees on their best-response actions almost everywhere.
Ally Yalei Du, Dung Daniel T. Ngo, Steven Z. Wu
ICLR1
2025 Tuning Algorithmic and Architectural Hyperparameters in Graph-Based Semi-Supervised Learning with Provable Guarantees
abstract
Graph-based semi-supervised learning is a powerful paradigm in machine learning for modeling and exploiting the underlying graph structure that captures the relationship between labeled and unlabeled data. A large number of classical as well as modern deep learning based algorithms have been proposed for this problem, often having tunable hyperparameters. We initiate a formal study of tuning algorithm hyperparameters from parameterized algorithm families for this problem. We obtain novel $O(\log n)$ pseudo-dimension upper bounds for hyperparameter selection in three classical label propagation-based algorithm families, where $n$ is the number of nodes, implying bounds on the amount of data needed for learning provably good parameters. We further provide matching $\Omega(\log n)$ pseudo-dimension lower bounds, thus asymptotically characterizing the learning-theoretic complexity of the parameter tuning problem. We extend our study to selecting architectural hyperparameters in modern graph neural networks. We bound the Rademacher complexity for tuning the self-loop weighting in recently proposed Simplified Graph Convolution (SGC) networks. We further propose a tunable architecture that interpolates graph convolutional neural networks (GCN) and graph attention networks (GAT) in every layer, and provide Rademacher complexity bounds for tuning the interpolation coefficient.
Ally Yalei Du, Dravyansh Sharma
UAI1