Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Anna Volokitin
dblp:190/1677
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3 · 2 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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 |
Image recognition and object detection · 46% Deep learning architectures and training · 25% Trustworthy machine learning · 22% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Multimedia analysis and retrieval · 100% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
convolutional neural network |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Do Deep Neural Networks Suffer from Crowding? · NIPS 2017 |
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
object recognition |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Do Deep Neural Networks Suffer from Crowding? · NIPS 2017 |
Multimedia analysis and retrieval
cross-modal retrieval |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Query-adaptive Video Summarization via Quality-aware Relevance Estimation · ACM Multimedia 2017 |
Multimedia analysis and retrieval › video summarization
query-focused video summarization |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Query-adaptive Video Summarization via Quality-aware Relevance Estimation · ACM Multimedia 2017 |
Multimedia analysis and retrieval
video summarization |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Query-adaptive Video Summarization via Quality-aware Relevance Estimation · ACM Multimedia 2017 |
Multimedia analysis and retrieval › multimedia analysis › cross-media analysis › vision-language understanding
visual-semantic embedding |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Query-adaptive Video Summarization via Quality-aware Relevance Estimation · ACM Multimedia 2017 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Predicting When Saliency Maps are Accurate and Eye Fixations Consistent · CVPR 2016 |
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
saliency prediction |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Predicting When Saliency Maps are Accurate and Eye Fixations Consistent · CVPR 2016 |
Computer vision › 3D vision
biological vision modeling |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Do Deep Neural Networks Suffer from Crowding? · NIPS 2017 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
neural network · 0.3multi-scale receptive field · 0.3maximal marginal relevance · 0.3convolutional neural network · 0.3machine learning · 0.2deep convolutional neural network · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Modelling the Distribution of 3D Brain MRI Using a 2D Slice VAE
Anna Volokitin, Ertunc Erdil, Neerav Karani, Kerem Can Tezcan, Xiaoran Chen, Luc Van Gool, Ender Konukoglu |
MICCAI (7) | 1 |
| 2017 | Query-adaptive Video Summarization via Quality-aware Relevance EstimationabstractAlthough the problem of automatic video summarization has recently received a lot of attention, the problem of creating a video summary that also highlights elements relevant to a search query has been less studied. We address this problem by posing query-relevant summarization as a video frame subset selection problem, which lets us optimise for summaries which are simultaneously diverse, representative of the entire video, and relevant to a text query. We quantify relevance by measuring the distance between frames and queries in a common textual-visual semantic embedding space induced by a neural network. In addition, we extend the model to capture query-independent properties, such as frame quality. We compare our method against previous state of the art on textual-visual embeddings for thumbnail selection and show that our model outperforms them on relevance prediction. Furthermore, we introduce a new dataset, annotated with diversity and query-specific relevance labels. On this dataset, we train and test our complete model for video summarization and show that it outperforms standard baselines such as Maximal Marginal Relevance. Arun Balajee Vasudevan, Michael Gygli, Anna Volokitin, Luc Van Gool |
ACM Multimedia | 3 |
| 2017 | Do Deep Neural Networks Suffer from Crowding?abstractCrowding is a visual effect suffered by humans, in which an object that can be recognized in isolation can no longer be recognized when other objects, called flankers, are placed close to it. In this work, we study the effect of crowding in artificial Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) for object recognition. We analyze both deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) as well as an extension of DCNNs that are multi-scale and that change the receptive field size of the convolution filters with their position in the image. The latter networks, that we call eccentricity-dependent, have been proposed for modeling the feedforward path of the primate visual cortex. Our results reveal that the eccentricity-dependent model, trained on target objects in isolation, can recognize such targets in the presence of flankers, if the targets are near the center of the image, whereas DCNNs cannot. Also, for all tested networks, when trained on targets in isolation, we find that recognition accuracy of the networks decreases the closer the flankers are to the target and the more flankers there are. We find that visual similarity between the target and flankers also plays a role and that pooling in early layers of the network leads to more crowding. Additionally, we show that incorporating flankers into the images of the training set for learning the DNNs does not lead to robustness against configurations not seen at training. Anna Volokitin, Gemma Roig, Tomaso A. Poggio |
NIPS | 1 |
| 2016 | Predicting When Saliency Maps are Accurate and Eye Fixations ConsistentabstractMany computational models of visual attention use image features and machine learning techniques to predict eye fixation locations as saliency maps. Recently, the success of Deep Convolutional Neural Networks (DCNNs) for object recognition has opened a new avenue for computational models of visual attention due to the tight link between visual attention and object recognition. In this paper, we show that using features from DCNNs for object recognition we can make predictions that enrich the information provided by saliency models. Namely, we can estimate the reliability of a saliency model from the raw image, which serves as a meta-saliency measure that may be used to select the best saliency algorithm for an image. Analogously, the consistency of the eye fixations among subjects, i.e. the agreement between the eye fixation locations of different subjects, can also be predicted and used by a designer to assess whether subjects reach a consensus about salient image locations. Anna Volokitin, Michael Gygli, Xavier Boix |
CVPR | 1 |