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

Joseph Dean

dblp:217/0559 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as 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 · 1 · 1 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

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.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers
Performance modeling and evaluation · 75% Distributed systems · 25%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Generative modeling · 100%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Generative modeling
inverse problem
0.512021
Intermediate Layer Optimization for Inverse Problems using Deep Generative Models · ICML 2021
Performance modeling and evaluation
benchmarking
0.522020
Wait of a Decade: Did SPEC CPU 2017 Broaden the Performance Horizon? · HPCA 2018
Demystifying graph processing frameworks and benchmarks · Sci. China Inf. Sci. 2020
Distributed systems
graph processing systems
0.412020
Demystifying graph processing frameworks and benchmarks · Sci. China Inf. Sci. 2020
Performance modeling and evaluation › workload characterization
performance counter analysis
0.312018
Wait of a Decade: Did SPEC CPU 2017 Broaden the Performance Horizon? · HPCA 2018
Performance modeling and evaluation
workload characterization
0.312018
Wait of a Decade: Did SPEC CPU 2017 Broaden the Performance Horizon? · HPCA 2018
Performance modeling and evaluation › benchmarking › benchmark suite analysis
benchmark subset selection
0.112018
Wait of a Decade: Did SPEC CPU 2017 Broaden the Performance Horizon? · HPCA 2018
Performance modeling and evaluation
design trade-off analysis
0.112018
Wait of a Decade: Did SPEC CPU 2017 Broaden the Performance Horizon? · HPCA 2018

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

latent space optimization · 0.5l1 ball search · 0.5framework analysis · 0.4benchmark characterization · 0.4principal component analysis · 0.3performance counters · 0.3clustering · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Intermediate Layer Optimization for Inverse Problems using Deep Generative Models
abstract
We propose Intermediate Layer Optimization (ILO), a novel optimization algorithm for solving inverse problems with deep generative models. Instead of optimizing only over the initial latent code, we progressively change the input layer obtaining successively more expressive generators. To explore the higher dimensional spaces, our method searches for latent codes that lie within a small l1 ball around the manifold induced by the previous layer. Our theoretical analysis shows that by keeping the radius of the ball relatively small, we can improve the established error bound for compressed sensing with deep generative models. We empirically show that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods introduced in StyleGAN2 and PULSE for a wide range of inverse problems including inpainting, denoising, super-resolution and compressed sensing.
Giannis Daras, Joseph Dean, Ajil Jalal, Alexandros G. Dimakis
ICML2
2020 Demystifying graph processing frameworks and benchmarks
Junyong Deng, Qinzhe Wu, Shuang Song 0007, Joseph Dean, Lizy Kurian John
Sci. China Inf. Sci.5
2018 Wait of a Decade: Did SPEC CPU 2017 Broaden the Performance Horizon?
abstract
The recently released SPEC CPU2017 benchmark suite has already started receiving a lot of attention from both industry and academic communities. However, due to the significantly high size and complexity of the benchmarks, simulating all the CPU2017 benchmarks for design trade-off evaluation is likely to become extremely difficult. Simulating a randomly selected subset, or a random input set, may result in misleading conclusions. This paper analyzes the SPEC CPU2017 benchmarks using performance counter based experimentation from seven commercial systems, and uses statistical techniques such as principal component analysis and clustering to identify similarities among benchmarks. Such analysis can reveal benchmark redundancies and identify subsets for researchers who cannot use all benchmarks in pre-silicon design trade-off evaluations. Many of the SPEC CPU2006 benchmarks have been replaced with larger and complex workloads in the SPEC CPU2017 suite. However, compared to CPU2006, it is unknown whether SPEC CPU2017 benchmarks have different performance demands or whether they stress machines differently. Additionally, to evaluate the balance of CPU2017 benchmarks, we analyze the performance characteristics of CPU2017 workloads and compare them with emerging database, graph analytics and electronic design automation (EDA) workloads. This paper provides the first detailed analysis of SPEC CPU2017 benchmark suite for the architecture community.
Reena Panda, Shuang Song 0007, Joseph Dean, Lizy Kurian John
HPCA3