Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Eva Schuberth
dblp:15/2667
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Image and video processing
color image processing |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Image-Dependent Gamut Mapping as Optimization Problem · IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2007 |
Image and video processing › color image processing
gamut mapping |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Image-Dependent Gamut Mapping as Optimization Problem · IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2007 |
Multimedia systems and quality of experience › quality of experience
user-perceived quality |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Conjoint Analysis to Measure the Perceived Quality in Volume Rendering · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2007 |
Visualization and visual analytics
visualization evaluation |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Conjoint Analysis to Measure the Perceived Quality in Volume Rendering · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2007 |
Rendering
volume rendering |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | Approximate Sorting
Joachim Giesen, Eva Schuberth, Milos Stojakovic |
Fundam. Informaticae | 2 |
| 2007 | Collaborative Ranking: An Aggregation Algorithm for Individuals' Preference Estimation
Joachim Giesen, Dieter Mitsche, Eva Schuberth |
AAIM | 3 |
| 2007 | Image-Dependent Gamut Mapping as Optimization ProblemabstractWe 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 RenderingabstractVisualization 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 SortingabstractWe 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 |
LATIN | 2 |