Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
David Fass
dblp:10/2895
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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
1 paper |
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 50% Learning theory · 50% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
concept learning |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Categorization Under Complexity: A Unified MDL Account of Human Learning of Regular and Irregular Categories · NIPS 2002 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › model selection
minimum description length |
0.0 | 1 | 2002 | Categorization Under Complexity: A Unified MDL Account of Human Learning of Regular and Irregular Categories · NIPS 2002 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
minimum description length · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | Categorization Under Complexity: A Unified MDL Account of Human Learning of Regular and Irregular CategoriesabstractWe present an account of human concept learning-that is, learning of categories from examples-based on the principle of minimum descrip(cid:173) tion length (MDL). In support of this theory, we tested a wide range of two-dimensional concept types, including both regular (simple) and highly irregular (complex) structures, and found the MDL theory to give a good account of subjects' performance. This suggests that the intrin(cid:173) sic complexity of a concept (that is, its description -length) systematically influences its leamability. 1- The Structure of Categories A number of different principles have been advanced to explain the manner in which hu(cid:173) mans learn to categorize objects. It has been variously suggested that the underlying prin(cid:173) ciple might be the similarity structure of objects [1], the manipulability of decision bound~ aries [2], or Bayesian inference [3][4]. While many of these theories are mathematically well-grounded and have been successful in explaining a range of experimental findings, they have commonly only been tested on a narrow collection of concept types similar to the simple unimodal categories of Figure 1(a-e). David Fass, Jacob Feldman |
NIPS | 1 |