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

Satya Sai Srinath Namburi

dblp:362/5934 · also Satya Sai Srinath Namburi GNVV · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
0as first author
5since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0002-0726-5653ORCID · verified

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 5 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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
Trustworthy machine learning · 30% Learning paradigms · 16% Vision and language · 8%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Medical and health informatics · 50% Bioinformatics and computational biology · 50%

Topics — the 13 heaviest of 16, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › calibration
confidence calibration
1.622025
Rethinking Confidence Scores and Thresholds in Pseudolabeling-based SSL · ICML 2025
Pearls from Pebbles: Improved Confidence Functions for Auto-labeling · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › language model interpretability
brain alignment
0.912025
Correlating instruction-tuning (in multimodal models) with vision-language processing (in the brain) · ICLR 2025
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
dynamic modeling
0.912025
LETS Forecast: Learning Embedology for Time Series Forecasting · ICML 2025
Computer vision › Vision and language › vision-language model
multimodal large language model
0.912025
Correlating instruction-tuning (in multimodal models) with vision-language processing (in the brain) · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › semi-supervised learning
pseudo-labeling
0.912025
Rethinking Confidence Scores and Thresholds in Pseudolabeling-based SSL · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
semi-supervised learning
0.912025
Rethinking Confidence Scores and Thresholds in Pseudolabeling-based SSL · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Time series and sequential data › time series analysis
time series forecasting
0.912025
LETS Forecast: Learning Embedology for Time Series Forecasting · ICML 2025
Bioinformatics and computational biology › computational neuroscience › neural response modeling
brain encoding model
0.912025
Correlating instruction-tuning (in multimodal models) with vision-language processing (in the brain) · ICLR 2025
Medical and health informatics
neuroimaging
0.912025
Correlating instruction-tuning (in multimodal models) with vision-language processing (in the brain) · ICLR 2025
Computer vision › Video understanding and tracking
action quality assessment
0.812024
RICA2: Rubric-Informed, Calibrated Assessment of Actions · ECCV (63) 2024
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
auto labeling
0.812024
Pearls from Pebbles: Improved Confidence Functions for Auto-labeling · NeurIPS 2024
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
instruction tuning
0.312025
Correlating instruction-tuning (in multimodal models) with vision-language processing (in the brain) · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Learning theory › nonparametric regression
kernel regression
0.312025
LETS Forecast: Learning Embedology for Time Series Forecasting · ICML 2025

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

representational similarity analysis · 1.7fMRI · 1.7threshold selection · 0.9takens' theorem · 0.9softmax attention · 0.9kernel regression · 0.9consistency regularization · 0.9confidence scoring · 0.9post-hoc calibration · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Correlating instruction-tuning (in multimodal models) with vision-language processing (in the brain)
abstract
Transformer-based language models, though not explicitly trained to mimic brain recordings, have demonstrated surprising alignment with brain activity. Progress in these models—through increased size, instruction-tuning, and multimodality—has led to better representational alignment with neural data. Recently, a new class of instruction-tuned multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) have emerged, showing remarkable zero-shot capabilities in open-ended multimodal vision tasks. However, it is unknown whether MLLMs, when prompted with natural instructions, lead to better brain alignment and effectively capture instruction-specific representations. To address this, we first investigate the brain alignment, i.e., measuring the degree of predictivity of neural visual activity using text output response embeddings from MLLMs as participants engage in watching natural scenes. Experiments with 10 different instructions (like image captioning, visual question answering, etc.) show that MLLMs exhibit significantly better brain alignment than vision-only models and perform comparably to non-instruction-tuned multimodal models like CLIP. We also find that while these MLLMs are effective at generating high-quality responses suitable to the task-specific instructions, not all instructions are relevant for brain alignment. Further, by varying instructions, we make the MLLMs encode instruction-specific visual concepts related to the input image. This analysis shows that MLLMs effectively capture count-related and recognition-related concepts, demonstrating strong alignment with brain activity. Notably, the majority of the explained variance of the brain encoding models is shared between MLLM embeddings of image captioning and other instructions. These results indicate that enhancing MLLMs' ability to capture more task-specific information could allow for better differentiation between various types of instructions, and hence improve their precision in predicting brain responses.
Subba Reddy Oota, Akshett Rai Jindal, Ishani Mondal, Khushbu Pahwa, Satya Sai Srinath Namburi, Manish Shrivastava 0001, Maneesh Kumar Singh 0001, Raju S. Bapi, Manish Gupta 0001
ICLR5
2025 LETS Forecast: Learning Embedology for Time Series Forecasting
abstract
Real-world time series are often governed by complex nonlinear dynamics. Understanding these underlying dynamics is crucial for precise future prediction. While deep learning has achieved major success in time series forecasting, many existing approaches do not explicitly model the dynamics. To bridge this gap, we introduce DeepEDM, a framework that integrates nonlinear dynamical systems modeling with deep neural networks. Inspired by empirical dynamic modeling (EDM) and rooted in Takens' theorem, DeepEDM presents a novel deep model that learns a latent space from time-delayed embeddings, and employs kernel regression to approximate the underlying dynamics, while leveraging efficient implementation of softmax attention and allowing for accurate prediction of future time steps. To evaluate our method, we conduct comprehensive experiments on synthetic data of nonlinear dynamical systems as well as real-world time series across domains. Our results show that DeepEDM is robust to input noise, and outperforms state-of-the-art methods in forecasting accuracy. Our code is available at: https://abrarmajeedi.github.io/deep_edm.
Abrar Majeedi, Gajjala Viswanatha Reddy, Satya Sai Srinath Namburi, Nada Magdi Elkordi, Yin Li 0003
ICML3
2025 Rethinking Confidence Scores and Thresholds in Pseudolabeling-based SSL
abstract
Modern semi-supervised learning (SSL) methods rely on pseudolabeling and consistency regularization. Pseudolabeling is typically performed by comparing the model’s confidence scores and a predefined threshold. While several heuristics have been proposed to improve threshold selection, the underlying issues of overconfidence and miscalibration in confidence scores remain largely unaddressed, leading to inaccurate pseudolabels, degraded test accuracy, and prolonged training. We take a first-principles approach to learn confidence scores and thresholds with an explicit knob for error. This flexible framework addresses the fundamental question of optimal scores and threshold selection in pseudolabeling. Moreover, it gives practitioners a principled way to control the quality and quantity of pseudolabels. Such control is vital in SSL, where balancing pseudolabel quality and quantity directly affects model performance and training efficiency. Our experiments show that, by integrating this framework with modern SSL methods, we achieve significant improvements in accuracy and training efficiency. In addition, we provide novel insights on the trade-offs between the choices of the error parameter and the end model’s performance.
Harit Vishwakarma, Satya Sai Srinath Namburi, Sui Jiet Tay, Ramya Korlakai Vinayak, Frederic Sala
ICML3
2024 RICA2: Rubric-Informed, Calibrated Assessment of Actions
Abrar Majeedi, Gajjala Viswanatha Reddy, Satya Sai Srinath Namburi, Yin Li 0003
ECCV (63)3
2024 Pearls from Pebbles: Improved Confidence Functions for Auto-labeling
abstract
Auto-labeling is an important family of techniques that produce labeled training sets with minimum manual annotation. A prominent variant, threshold-based auto-labeling (TBAL), works by finding thresholds on a model's confidence scores above which it can accurately automatically label unlabeled data. However, many models are known to produce overconfident scores, leading to poor TBAL performance. While a natural idea is to apply off-the-shelf calibration methods to alleviate the overconfidence issue, we show that such methods fall short. Rather than experimenting with ad-hoc choices of confidence functions, we propose a framework for studying the optimal TBAL confidence function. We develop a tractable version of the framework to obtain Colander (Confidence functions for Efficient and Reliable Auto-labeling), a new post-hoc method specifically designed to maximize performance in TBAL systems. We perform an extensive empirical evaluation of Colander and compare it against methods designed for calibration. Colander achieves up to 60% improvement on coverage over the baselines while maintaining error level below 5% and using the same amount of labeled data.
Harit Vishwakarma, Sui Jiet Tay, Satya Sai Srinath Namburi, Frederic Sala, Ramya Korlakai Vinayak
NeurIPS4