Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Steven L. Small
dblp:20/5855
· DBLP profile ↗
8ranked-venue papers
3as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0002-5293-6172ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 3 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3 · 2 first-authorHuman-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 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
5 papers |
Generative modeling · 91% Information extraction and text analysis · 4% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 3% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Medical and health informatics · 100% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Generative modeling
generative model |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Generative versus discriminative training of RBMs for classification of fMRI images · NIPS 2008 |
Medical and health informatics › neuroimaging
neuroimaging analysis |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Generative versus discriminative training of RBMs for classification of fMRI images · NIPS 2008 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › natural language understanding
neural parsing |
0.0 | 1 | 1982 | Toward Connectionist Parsing · AAAI 1982 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
conceptual analysis |
0.0 | 1 | 1979 | Word Expert Parsing · ACL 1979 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
syntactic parsing |
0.0 | 1 | 1979 | Word Expert Parsing · IJCAI 1979 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
linguistic theory |
0.0 | 1 | 1981 | Viewing Word Expert Parsing as Linguistic Theory · IJCAI 1981 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
restricted boltzmann machine · 0.2logistic regression · 0.2word expert parsing · 0.0distributed procedural experts · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Separating Stimulus-Induced and Background Components of Dynamic Functional Connectivity in Naturalistic fMRIabstractWe consider the challenges in extracting stimulus-related neural dynamics from other intrinsic processes and noise in naturalistic functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Most studies rely on inter-subject correlations (ISC) of low-level regional activity and neglect varying responses in individuals. We propose a novel, data-driven approach based on low-rank plus sparse ( [Formula: see text]) decomposition to isolate stimulus-driven dynamic changes in brain functional connectivity (FC) from the background noise, by exploiting shared network structure among subjects receiving the same naturalistic stimuli. The time-resolved multi-subject FC matrices are modeled as a sum of a low-rank component of correlated FC patterns across subjects, and a sparse component of subject-specific, idiosyncratic background activities. To recover the shared low-rank subspace, we introduce a fused version of principal component pursuit (PCP) by adding a fusion-type penalty on the differences between the columns of the low-rank matrix. The method improves the detection of stimulus-induced group-level homogeneity in the FC profile while capturing inter-subject variability. We develop an efficient algorithm via a linearized alternating direction method of multipliers to solve the fused-PCP. Simulations show accurate recovery by the fused-PCP even when a large fraction of FC edges are severely corrupted. When applied to natural fMRI data, our method reveals FC changes that were time-locked to auditory processing during movie watching, with dynamic engagement of sensorimotor systems for speech-in-noise. It also provides a better mapping to auditory content in the movie than ISC. Chee-Ming Ting, Jeremy I. Skipper, Fuad Noman, Steven L. Small, Hernando C. Ombao |
IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging | 4 |
| 2010 | Comparing Classification Methods for Longitudinal fMRI StudiesabstractWe compare 10 methods of classifying fMRI volumes by applying them to data from a longitudinal study of stroke recovery: adaptive Fisher's linear and quadratic discriminant; gaussian naive Bayes; support vector machines with linear, quadratic, and radial basis function (RBF) kernels; logistic regression; two novel methods based on pairs of restricted Boltzmann machines (RBM); and K-nearest neighbors. All methods were tested on three binary classification tasks, and their out-of-sample classification accuracies are compared. The relative performance of the methods varies considerably across subjects and classification tasks. The best overall performers were adaptive quadratic discriminant, support vector machines with RBF kernels, and generatively trained pairs of RBMs. Tanya Schmah, Grigori Yourganov, Richard S. Zemel, Geoffrey E. Hinton, Steven L. Small, Stephen C. Strother |
Neural Comput. | 5 |
| 2008 | Generative versus discriminative training of RBMs for classification of fMRI imagesabstractNeuroimaging datasets often have a very large number of voxels and a very small number of training cases, which means that overfitting of models for this data can become a very serious problem. Working with a set of fMRI images from a study on stroke recovery, we consider a classification task for which logistic regression performs poorly, even when L1- or L2- regularized. We show that much better discrimination can be achieved by fitting a generative model to each separate condition and then seeing which model is most likely to have generated the data. We compare discriminative training of exactly the same set of models, and we also consider convex blends of generative and discriminative training. Tanya Schmah, Geoffrey E. Hinton, Richard S. Zemel, Steven L. Small, Stephen C. Strother |
NIPS | 4 |
| 1982 | Toward Connectionist Parsing
Steven L. Small, Garrison W. Cottrell, Lokendra Shastri |
AAAI | 1 |
| 1981 | Viewing Word Expert Parsing as Linguistic Theory
Steven L. Small |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 1981 | Toward a Theory of Distributed Word Expert Natural Language ParsingabstractAn approach to natural language meaning-based parsing in which the unit of linguistic knowledge is the word rather than the rewrite rule is described. In the word expert parser, knowledge about language is distributed across a population of procedural experts, each representing a word of the language, and each an expert at diagnosing that word's intended usage in context. The parser is structured around a coroutine control environment in which the generator-like word experts ask questions and exchange information in coming to collective agreement on sentence meaning. The word expert theory is advanced as a better cognitive model of human language expertise than the traditional rule-based approach. The technical discussion is organized around examples taken from the prototype LISP system which implements parts of the theory. Chuck Rieger, Steven L. Small |
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. | 2 |
| 1979 | Word Expert ParsingabstractThis paper describes an approach to conceptual analysis and understanding of natural language in which linguistic knowledge centers on individual words, and the analysis mechanisms consist of interactions among distributed procedural experts representing that knowledge. Each word expert models the process of diagnosing the intended usage of a particular word in context. The Word Expert Parser performs conceptual analysis through the interactions of the individual experts, which ask questions and exchange information in converging on a single mutually acceptable sentence meaning. The Word Expert theory is advanced as a better cognitive model of natural language understanding than the traditional rule-based approaches. The Word Expert Parser models parts of the theory, and the important issues of control and representation that arise in developing such a model from the basis of the technical discussion. An example from the prototype LISP implementation helps explain the theoretical results presented. Steven L. Small |
ACL | 1 |
| 1979 | Word Expert Parsing
Chuck Rieger, Steven L. Small |
IJCAI | 2 |