Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Oren Boiman
dblp:00/6704
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2008
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 4 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3 · 2 first-author
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
5 papers |
Segmentation and scene understanding · 37% Image recognition and object detection · 28% Representation and self-supervised learning · 14% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Image and video processing · 100% |
Topics — the 8 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding
image segmentation |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | What Is a Good Image Segment? A Unified Approach to Segment Extraction · ECCV (4) 2008 |
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
image-to-class distance |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | In defense of Nearest-Neighbor based image classification · CVPR 2008 |
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding › image segmentation
segmentation evaluation |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | What Is a Good Image Segment? A Unified Approach to Segment Extraction · ECCV (4) 2008 |
Computer vision › Video understanding and tracking
video analytics |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Detecting Irregularities in Images and in Video · Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2007 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
similarity measure |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | Similarity by Composition · NIPS 2006 |
Machine learning › Time series and sequential data
anomaly detection |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Detecting Irregularities in Images and in Video · ICCV 2005 |
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding
saliency detection |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Detecting Irregularities in Images and in Video · ICCV 2005 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
signal representation |
0.0 | 1 | 2006 | Similarity by Composition · NIPS 2006 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
spatio-temporal analysis · 0.1unified optimization · 0.1naive bayes nearest neighbor · 0.1bag-of-words · 0.1local similarity · 0.1information-theoretic scoring · 0.1puzzle-based composition · 0.1probabilistic graphical model · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | In defense of Nearest-Neighbor based image classificationabstractState-of-the-art image classification methods require an intensive learning/training stage (using SVM, Boosting, etc.) In contrast, non-parametric nearest-neighbor (NN) based image classifiers require no training time and have other favorable properties. However, the large performance gap between these two families of approaches rendered NN-based image classifiers useless. We claim that the effectiveness of non-parametric NN-based image classification has been considerably undervalued. We argue that two practices commonly used in image classification methods, have led to the inferior performance of NN-based image classifiers: (i) Quantization of local image descriptors (used to generate "bags-of-words ", codebooks). (ii) Computation of 'image-to-image' distance, instead of 'image-to-class' distance. We propose a trivial NN-based classifier - NBNN, (Naive-Bayes nearest-neighbor), which employs NN- distances in the space of the local image descriptors (and not in the space of images). NBNN computes direct 'image- to-class' distances without descriptor quantization. We further show that under the Naive-Bayes assumption, the theoretically optimal image classifier can be accurately approximated by NBNN. Although NBNN is extremely simple, efficient, and requires no learning/training phase, its performance ranks among the top leading learning-based image classifiers. Empirical comparisons are shown on several challenging databases (Caltech-101 ,Caltech-256 and Graz-01). Oren Boiman, Eli Shechtman, Michal Irani |
CVPR | 1 |
| 2008 | What Is a Good Image Segment? A Unified Approach to Segment Extraction
Shai Bagon, Oren Boiman, Michal Irani |
ECCV (4) | 2 |
| 2007 | Detecting Irregularities in Images and in Video
Oren Boiman, Michal Irani |
Int. J. Comput. Vis. | 1 |
| 2006 | Similarity by CompositionabstractWe propose a new approach for measuring similarity between two signals, which is applicable to many machine learning tasks, and to many signal types. We say that a signal S1 is “similar” to a signal S2 if it is “easy” to compose S1 from few large contiguous chunks of S2. Obviously, if we use small enough pieces, then any signal can be composed of any other. Therefore, the larger those pieces are, the more similar S1 is to S2. This induces a local similarity score at every point in the signal, based on the size of its supported surrounding region. These local scores can in turn be accumulated in a principled information-theoretic way into a global similarity score of the entire S1 to S2. “Similarity by Composition” can be applied between pairs of signals, between groups of signals, and also between dif- ferent portions of the same signal. It can therefore be employed in a wide variety of machine learning problems (clustering, classification, retrieval, segmentation, attention, saliency, labelling, etc.), and can be applied to a wide range of signal types (images, video, audio, biological data, etc.) We show a few such examples. Oren Boiman, Michal Irani |
NIPS | 1 |
| 2005 | Detecting Irregularities in Images and in VideoabstractWe address the problem of detecting irregularities in visual data, e.g., detecting suspicious behaviors in video sequences, or identifying salient patterns in images. The term "irregular" depends on the context in which the "regular" or "valid" are defined. Yet, it is not realistic to expect explicit definition of all possible valid configurations for a given context. We pose the problem of determining the validity of visual data as a process of constructing a puzzle: We try to compose a new observed image region or a new video segment ("the query") using chunks of data ("pieces of puzzle") extracted from previous visual examples ("the database "). Regions in the observed data which can be composed using large contiguous chunks of data from the database are considered very likely, whereas regions in the observed data which cannot be composed from the database (or can be composed, but only using small fragmented pieces) are regarded as unlikely/suspicious. The problem is posed as an inference process in a probabilistic graphical model. We show applications of this approach to identifying saliency in images and video, and for suspicious behavior recognition. Oren Boiman, Michal Irani |
ICCV | 1 |