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

JooSeuk Kim

dblp:88/1652 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
5as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 4 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 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
4 papers
Learning theory · 37% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 29% Kernel, tree and ensemble methods · 17%

Topics — the 9 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › density estimation
kernel density estimation
0.332012
Robust kernel density estimation · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2012
On the Robustness of Kernel Density M-Estimators · ICML 2011
Performance analysis for L_2 kernel classification · NIPS 2008
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
kernel methods
0.322012
Robust kernel density estimation · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2012
L2 Kernel Classification · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2010
Machine learning › Learning theory › classification › nonlinear classification
kernel-based classification
0.222010
L2 Kernel Classification · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2010
Performance analysis for L_2 kernel classification · NIPS 2008
Machine learning › Learning theory
statistical learning theory
0.222010
L2 Kernel Classification · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2010
Performance analysis for L_2 kernel classification · NIPS 2008
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › density estimation › kernel density estimation
robust kernel density estimation
0.112012
Robust kernel density estimation · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2012
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
m-estimator
0.112011
On the Robustness of Kernel Density M-Estimators · ICML 2011
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness
0.112011
On the Robustness of Kernel Density M-Estimators · ICML 2011
Machine learning › Learning theory
concentration inequalities
0.112008
Performance analysis for L_2 kernel classification · NIPS 2008
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization bounds
0.112008
Performance analysis for L_2 kernel classification · NIPS 2008

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

kernel density estimation · 0.3quadratic programming · 0.1oracle inequality · 0.1integrated squared error · 0.1cross-validation · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2012 Robust kernel density estimation
JooSeuk Kim, Clayton Scott
J. Mach. Learn. Res.1
2011 On the Robustness of Kernel Density M-Estimators
JooSeuk Kim, Clayton Scott
ICML1
2010 L2 Kernel Classification
abstract
Nonparametric kernel methods are widely used and proven to be successful in many statistical learning problems. Well-known examples include the kernel density estimate (KDE) for density estimation and the support vector machine (SVM) for classification. We propose a kernel classifier that optimizes the L2 or integrated squared error (ISE) of a "difference of densities." We focus on the Gaussian kernel, although the method applies to other kernels suitable for density estimation. Like a support vector machine (SVM), the classifier is sparse and results from solving a quadratic program. We provide statistical performance guarantees for the proposed L2 kernel classifier in the form of a finite sample oracle inequality and strong consistency in the sense of both ISE and probability of error. A special case of our analysis applies to a previously introduced ISE-based method for kernel density estimation. For dimensionality greater than 15, the basic L2 kernel classifier performs poorly in practice. Thus, we extend the method through the introduction of a natural regularization parameter, which allows it to remain competitive with the SVM in high dimensions. Simulation results for both synthetic and real-world data are presented.
JooSeuk Kim, Clayton Scott
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.1
2008 Robust kernel density estimation
abstract
In this paper, we propose a method for robust kernel density estimation. We interpret a KDE with Gaussian kernel as the inner product between a mapped test point and the centroid of mapped training points in kernel feature space. Our robust KDE replaces the centroid with a robust estimate based on M-estimation [1]. The iteratively re-weighted least squares (IRWLS) algorithm for M-estimation depends only on inner products, and can therefore be implemented using the kernel trick. We prove the IRWLS method monotonically decreases its objective value at every iteration for a broad class of robust loss functions. Our proposed method is applied to synthetic data and network traffic volumes, and the results compare favorably to the standard KDE.
JooSeuk Kim, Clayton Scott
ICASSP1
2008 Performance analysis for L_2 kernel classification
abstract
We provide statistical performance guarantees for a recently introduced kernel classifier that optimizes the $L_2$ or integrated squared error (ISE) of a difference of densities. The classifier is similar to a support vector machine (SVM) in that it is the solution of a quadratic program and yields a sparse classifier. Unlike SVMs, however, the $L_2$ kernel classifier does not involve a regularization parameter. We prove a distribution free concentration inequality for a cross-validation based estimate of the ISE, and apply this result to deduce an oracle inequality and consistency of the classifier on the sense of both ISE and probability of error. Our results can also be specialized to give performance guarantees for an existing method of $L_2$ kernel density estimation.
JooSeuk Kim, Clayton Scott
NIPS1