BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Niklas Pfister

Niklas Pfister contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Methodologyeess.SYMachine Learningmath.DSmath.STRoboticsStatistics TheorySystems and Control

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
8topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Learning by Doing: Controlling a Dynamical System using Causality, Control, and Reinforcement Learning

Questions in causality, control, and reinforcement learning go beyond the classical machine learning task of prediction under i.i.d. observations. Instead, these fields consider the problem of learning how to actively perturb a system to achieve a certain effect on a response variable. Arguably, they have complementary views on the problem: In control, one usually aims to first identify the system by excitation strategies to then apply model-based design techniques to control the system. In (non-model-based) reinforcement learning, one directly optimizes a reward. In causality, one focus is on identifiability of causal structure. We believe that combining the different views might create synergies and this competition is meant as a first step toward such synergies. The participants had access to observational and (offline) interventional data generated by dynamical systems. Track CHEM considers an open-loop problem in which a single impulse at the beginning of the dynamics can be set, while Track ROBO considers a closed-loop problem in which control variables can be set at each time step. The goal in both tracks is to infer controls that drive the system to a desired state. Code is open-sourced ( https://github.com/LearningByDoingCompetition/learningbydoing-comp ) to reproduce the winning solutions of the competition and to facilitate trying out new methods on the competition tasks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Statistical Testing under Distributional Shifts

In this work, we introduce statistical testing under distributional shifts. We are interested in the hypothesis $P^* \in H_0$ for a target distribution $P^*$, but observe data from a different distribution $Q^*$. We assume that $P^*$ is related to $Q^*$ through a known shift $τ$ and formally introduce hypothesis testing in this setting. We propose a general testing procedure that first resamples from the observed data to construct an auxiliary data set and then applies an existing test in the target domain. We prove that if the size of the resample is at most $o(\sqrt{n})$ and the resampling weights are well-behaved, this procedure inherits the pointwise asymptotic level and power from the target test. If the map $τ$ is estimated from data, we can maintain the above guarantees under mild conditions if the estimation works sufficiently well. We further extend our results to finite sample level, uniform asymptotic level and a different resampling scheme. Testing under distributional shifts allows us to tackle a diverse set of problems. We argue that it may prove useful in reinforcement learning and covariate shift, we show how it reduces conditional to unconditional independence testing and we provide example applications in causal inference.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Causal models for dynamical systems

A probabilistic model describes a system in its observational state. In many situations, however, we are interested in the system's response under interventions. The class of structural causal models provides a language that allows us to model the behaviour under interventions. It can been taken as a starting point to answer a plethora of causal questions, including the identification of causal effects or causal structure learning. In this chapter, we provide a natural and straight-forward extension of this concept to dynamical systems, focusing on continuous time models. In particular, we introduce two types of causal kinetic models that differ in how the randomness enters into the model: it may either be considered as observational noise or as systematic driving noise. In both cases, we define interventions and therefore provide a possible starting point for causal inference. In this sense, the book chapter provides more questions than answers. The focus of the proposed causal kinetic models lies on the dynamics themselves rather than corresponding stationary distributions, for example. We believe that this is beneficial when the aim is to model the full time evolution of the system and data are measured at different time points. Under this focus, it is natural to consider interventions in the differential equations themselves.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access