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

Eva Schuberth

dblp:15/2667 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2009
—ORCID · none

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

Theory of computation · 3Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2

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.

Computer graphics and multimedia
2 papers
Image and video processing · 40% Visualization and visual analytics · 20% Multimedia systems and quality of experience · 20%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Image and video processing
color image processing
0.112007
Image-Dependent Gamut Mapping as Optimization Problem · IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2007
Image and video processing › color image processing
gamut mapping
0.112007
Image-Dependent Gamut Mapping as Optimization Problem · IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2007
Multimedia systems and quality of experience › quality of experience
user-perceived quality
0.112007
Conjoint Analysis to Measure the Perceived Quality in Volume Rendering · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2007
Visualization and visual analytics
visualization evaluation
0.112007
Conjoint Analysis to Measure the Perceived Quality in Volume Rendering · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2007
Rendering
volume rendering
0.112007
Conjoint Analysis to Measure the Perceived Quality in Volume Rendering · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2007

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

user study · 0.1psycho-visual testing · 0.1constrained optimization · 0.1conjoint analysis · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2009 Approximate Sorting
Joachim Giesen, Eva Schuberth, Milos Stojakovic
Fundam. Informaticae2
2007 Collaborative Ranking: An Aggregation Algorithm for Individuals' Preference Estimation
Joachim Giesen, Dieter Mitsche, Eva Schuberth
AAIM3
2007 Image-Dependent Gamut Mapping as Optimization Problem
abstract
We explore the potential of image-dependent gamut mapping as a constrained optimization problem. The performance of our new approach is compared to standard reference gamut mapping algorithms in psycho-visual tests.
Joachim Giesen, Eva Schuberth, Klaus Simon, Peter Zolliker, Oliver Zweifel
IEEE Trans. Image Process.2
2007 Conjoint Analysis to Measure the Perceived Quality in Volume Rendering
abstract
Visualization algorithms can have a large number of parameters, making the space of possible rendering results rather high-dimensional. Only a systematic analysis of the perceived quality can truly reveal the optimal setting for each such parameter. However, an exhaustive search in which all possible parameter permutations are presented to each user within a study group would be infeasible to conduct. Additional complications may result from possible parameter co-dependencies. Here, we will introduce an efficient user study design and analysis strategy that is geared to cope with this problem. The user feedback is fast and easy to obtain and does not require exhaustive parameter testing. To enable such a framework we have modified a preference measuring methodology, conjoint analysis, that originated in psychology and is now also widely used in market research. We demonstrate our framework by a study that measures the perceived quality in volume rendering within the context of large parameter spaces.
Joachim Giesen, Klaus Mueller 0001, Eva Schuberth, Lujin Wang, Peter Zolliker
IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph.3
2006 Approximate Sorting
abstract
We show that any comparison based, randomized algorithm to approximate any given ranking of n items within expected Spearman’s footrule distance n 2/ν(n) needs at least n (min{log ν(n), log n} – 6) comparisons in the worst case. This bound is tight up to a constant factor since there exists a deterministic algorithm that shows that 6n(log ν(n)+1) comparisons are always sufficient.
Joachim Giesen, Eva Schuberth, Milos Stojakovic
LATIN2