Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Karen A. Glocer
dblp:28/1903
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods › ensemble learning
boosting |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Boosting Algorithms for Maximizing the Soft Margin · NIPS 2007 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
convex optimization |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Boosting Algorithms for Maximizing the Soft Margin · NIPS 2007 |
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
ensemble learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Boosting Algorithms for Maximizing the Soft Margin · NIPS 2007 |
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding
edge detection |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Online feature selection for pixel classification · ICML 2005 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › dimensionality reduction
feature selection |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Online feature selection for pixel classification · ICML 2005 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › data reduction
online feature selection |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Online feature selection for pixel classification · ICML 2005 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization bounds |
0.0 | 1 | 2007 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | Entropy Regularized LPBoost
Manfred K. Warmuth, Karen A. Glocer, S. V. N. Vishwanathan |
ALT | 2 |
| 2007 | Boosting Algorithms for Maximizing the Soft MarginabstractGunnar 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 |
NIPS | 2 |
| 2005 | Online feature selection for pixel classificationabstractOnline 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 |
ICML | 1 |