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

Karen A. Glocer

dblp:28/1903 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as 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 · 3 · 1 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
2 papers
Kernel, tree and ensemble methods · 36% Optimization for machine learning · 18% Segmentation and scene understanding · 14%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods › ensemble learning
boosting
0.112007
Boosting Algorithms for Maximizing the Soft Margin · NIPS 2007
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
convex optimization
0.112007
Boosting Algorithms for Maximizing the Soft Margin · NIPS 2007
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
ensemble learning
0.112007
Boosting Algorithms for Maximizing the Soft Margin · NIPS 2007
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding
edge detection
0.112005
Online feature selection for pixel classification · ICML 2005
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › dimensionality reduction
feature selection
0.112005
Online feature selection for pixel classification · ICML 2005
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › data reduction
online feature selection
0.112005
Online feature selection for pixel classification · ICML 2005
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization bounds
0.012007
Boosting Algorithms for Maximizing the Soft Margin · NIPS 2007

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

relative entropy projection · 0.1convex optimization · 0.1hill climbing · 0.1grafting · 0.1best-first search · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2008 Entropy Regularized LPBoost
Manfred K. Warmuth, Karen A. Glocer, S. V. N. Vishwanathan
ALT2
2007 Boosting Algorithms for Maximizing the Soft Margin
abstract
Gunnar R¨atsch Friedrich Miescher Laboratory Max Planck Society T¨ubingen, Germany We present a novel boosting algorithm, called SoftBoost, designed for sets of bi- nary labeled examples that are not necessarily separable by convex combinations of base hypotheses. Our algorithm achieves robustness by capping the distribu- tions on the examples. Our update of the distribution is motivated by minimizing a relative entropy subject to the capping constraints and constraints on the edges of the obtained base hypotheses. The capping constraints imply a soft margin in the dual optimization problem. Our algorithm produces a convex combination of hypotheses whose soft margin is within δ of its maximum. We employ relative en- tropy projection methods to prove an O( ln N δ2 ) iteration bound for our algorithm, where N is number of examples. We compare our algorithm with other approaches including LPBoost, Brown- Boost, and SmoothBoost. We show that there exist cases where the number of iter- ations required by LPBoost grows linearly in N instead of the logarithmic growth for SoftBoost. In simulation studies we show that our algorithm converges about as fast as LPBoost, faster than BrownBoost, and much faster than SmoothBoost. In a benchmark comparison we illustrate the competitiveness of our approach.
Manfred K. Warmuth, Karen A. Glocer, Gunnar Rätsch
NIPS2
2005 Online feature selection for pixel classification
abstract
Online feature selection (OFS) provides an efficient way to sort through a large space of features, particularly in a scenario where the feature space is large and features take a significant amount of memory to store. Image processing operators, and especially combinations of image processing operators, provide a rich space of potential features for use in machine learning for image processing tasks but they are expensive to generate and store. In this paper we apply OFS to the problem of edge detection in grayscale imagery. We use a standard data set and compare our results to those obtained with traditional edge detectors, as well as with results obtained more recently using "statistical edge detection." We compare several different OFS approaches, including hill climbing, best first search, and grafting.
Karen A. Glocer, Damian Eads, James Theiler
ICML1