Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Matthias Seibert
dblp:127/6443
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1Theory of computation · 1
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 |
Representation and self-supervised learning · 83% Learning theory · 17% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Image and video processing · 100% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › unsupervised representation learning › sparse coding
dictionary learning |
0.4 | 2 | 2015 | Sample Complexity of Dictionary Learning and Other Matrix Factorizations · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2015 Separable Dictionary Learning · CVPR 2013 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
matrix factorization |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Sample Complexity of Dictionary Learning and Other Matrix Factorizations · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2015 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › matrix factorization
nonnegative matrix factorization |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Sample Complexity of Dictionary Learning and Other Matrix Factorizations · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2015 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
sample complexity |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Sample Complexity of Dictionary Learning and Other Matrix Factorizations · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2015 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › unsupervised representation learning › sparse coding › dictionary learning
sparse dictionary learning |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Sample Complexity of Dictionary Learning and Other Matrix Factorizations · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2015 |
Image and video processing › sparse representation
sparse image representation |
0.0 | 1 | 2013 | Separable Dictionary Learning · CVPR 2013 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
product of spheres optimization · 0.3K-SVD · 0.3generalization bounds · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | Sample Complexity of Dictionary Learning and Other Matrix FactorizationsabstractMany modern tools in machine learning and signal processing, such as sparse dictionary learning, principal component analysis, non-negative matrix factorization, K-means clustering, and so on, rely on the factorization of a matrix obtained by concatenating high-dimensional vectors from a training collection. While the idealized task would be to optimize the expected quality of the factors over the underlying distribution of training vectors, it is achieved in practice by minimizing an empirical average over the considered collection. The focus of this paper is to provide sample complexity estimates to uniformly control how much the empirical average deviates from the expected cost function. Standard arguments imply that the performance of the empirical predictor also exhibit such guarantees. The level of genericity of the approach encompasses several possible constraints on the factors (tensor product structure, shift-invariance, sparsity...), thus providing a unified perspective on the sample complexity of several widely used matrix factorization schemes. The derived generalization bounds behave proportional to (log (n)/n)1/2with respect to the number of samples n for the considered matrix factorization techniques. Rémi Gribonval, Rodolphe Jenatton, Francis R. Bach, Martin Kleinsteuber, Matthias Seibert |
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory | 5 |
| 2013 | Separable Dictionary LearningabstractMany techniques in computer vision, machine learning, and statistics rely on the fact that a signal of interest admits a sparse representation over some dictionary. Dictionaries are either available analytically, or can be learned from a suitable training set. While analytic dictionaries permit to capture the global structure of a signal and allow a fast implementation, learned dictionaries often perform better in applications as they are more adapted to the considered class of signals. In imagery, unfortunately, the numerical burden for (i) learning a dictionary and for (ii) employing the dictionary for reconstruction tasks only allows to deal with relatively small image patches that only capture local image information. The approach presented in this paper aims at overcoming these drawbacks by allowing a separable structure on the dictionary throughout the learning process. On the one hand, this permits larger patch-sizes for the learning phase, on the other hand, the dictionary is applied efficiently in reconstruction tasks. The learning procedure is based on optimizing over a product of spheres which updates the dictionary as a whole, thus enforces basic dictionary properties such as mutual coherence explicitly during the learning procedure. In the special case where no separable structure is enforced, our method competes with state-of-the-art dictionary learning methods like K-SVD. Simon Hawe, Matthias Seibert, Martin Kleinsteuber |
CVPR | 2 |