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

Sven Eberhardt

dblp:138/0868 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · unresolved

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 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
2 papers
Deep learning architectures and training · 38% Image recognition and object detection · 37% Representation and self-supervised learning · 25%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational science and engineering · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
attention mechanism
0.412019
Learning what and where to attend · ICLR (Poster) 2019
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
visual representation
0.212016
How Deep is the Feature Analysis underlying Rapid Visual Categorization? · NIPS 2016
Computational science and engineering › computational cognitive science
cognitive modeling
0.112016
How Deep is the Feature Analysis underlying Rapid Visual Categorization? · NIPS 2016

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

psychophysics · 0.5deep network · 0.5attention · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Learning what and where to attend
Drew Linsley, Dan Shiebler, Sven Eberhardt, Thomas Serre
ICLR (Poster)3
2016 How Deep is the Feature Analysis underlying Rapid Visual Categorization?
abstract
Rapid categorization paradigms have a long history in experimental psychology: Characterized by short presentation times and speeded behavioral responses, these tasks highlight the efficiency with which our visual system processes natural object categories. Previous studies have shown that feed-forward hierarchical models of the visual cortex provide a good fit to human visual decisions. At the same time, recent work in computer vision has demonstrated significant gains in object recognition accuracy with increasingly deep hierarchical architectures. But it is unclear how well these models account for human visual decisions and what they may reveal about the underlying brain processes. We have conducted a large-scale psychophysics study to assess the correlation between computational models and human behavioral responses on a rapid animal vs. non-animal categorization task. We considered visual representations of varying complexity by analyzing the output of different stages of processing in three state-of-the-art deep networks. We found that recognition accuracy increases with higher stages of visual processing (higher level stages indeed outperforming human participants on the same task) but that human decisions agree best with predictions from intermediate stages. Overall, these results suggest that human participants may rely on visual features of intermediate complexity and that the complexity of visual representations afforded by modern deep network models may exceed the complexity of those used by human participants during rapid categorization.
Sven Eberhardt, Jonah Cader, Thomas Serre
NIPS1
2014 Self-localization on texture statistics
abstract
The ability to localize ourselves in the outdoor world based on visual input even in absence of prior positional information is an important skill of our daily lives that comes naturally to us. However, the underlying mechanisms of this ability are poorly understood. Here, we show how simple texture statistics can be sufficient to provide a strong prior for the self-localization tasks. We find that statistics of common outdoor features such as tree density, foliage type or road structure provide a stronger cue for self-localization than the matching and recognition of less common landmarks such as lamp posts. We encourage the use of such common feature vectors as priors for self-localization systems and hypothesize that humans may use similar priors to assess the location from an unknown image.
Sven Eberhardt, Christoph Zetzsche
ICIP1