Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Shantanu Jaiswal
dblp:203/9071
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
4as first author
4since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0002-9987-487XORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 4 first-author · 4 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Applied, 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
3 papers |
Vision and language · 40% Deep learning architectures and training · 24% Video understanding and tracking · 14% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computer vision › Vision and language › multimodal reasoning
compositional reasoning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Learning to Reason Iteratively and Parallelly for Complex Visual Reasoning Scenarios · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
modality fusion |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Dissecting Multimodality in VideoQA Transformer Models by Impairing Modality Fusion · ICML 2024 |
Computer vision › Vision and language
multimodal representation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Dissecting Multimodality in VideoQA Transformer Models by Impairing Modality Fusion · ICML 2024 |
Computer vision › Video understanding and tracking
video question answering |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Dissecting Multimodality in VideoQA Transformer Models by Impairing Modality Fusion · ICML 2024 |
Computer vision › Vision and language
visual question answering |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Learning to Reason Iteratively and Parallelly for Complex Visual Reasoning Scenarios · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
attention mechanism |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | TDAM: Top-Down Attention Module for Contextually Guided Feature Selection in CNNs · ECCV (25) 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Dissecting Multimodality in VideoQA Transformer Models by Impairing Modality Fusion · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
representation probing |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Dissecting Multimodality in VideoQA Transformer Models by Impairing Modality Fusion · ICML 2024 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › temporal reasoning
spatio-temporal reasoning |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Learning to Reason Iteratively and Parallelly for Complex Visual Reasoning Scenarios · NeurIPS 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
transformer · 0.8non-parametric probe · 0.8iterative and parallel reasoning mechanism · 0.8attention analysis · 0.8top-down attention · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Dissecting Multimodality in VideoQA Transformer Models by Impairing Modality FusionabstractWhile VideoQA Transformer models demonstrate competitive performance on standard benchmarks, the reasons behind their success are not fully understood. Do these models capture the rich multimodal structures and dynamics from video and text jointly? Or are they achieving high scores by exploiting biases and spurious features? Hence, to provide insights, we design QUAG (QUadrant AveraGe), a lightweight and non-parametric probe, to conduct dataset-model combined representation analysis by impairing modality fusion. We find that the models achieve high performance on many datasets without leveraging multimodal representations. To validate QUAG further, we design QUAG-attention, a less-expressive replacement of self-attention with restricted token interactions. Models with QUAG-attention achieve similar performance with significantly fewer multiplication operations without any finetuning. Our findings raise doubts about the current models’ abilities to learn highly-coupled multimodal representations. Hence, we design the CLAVI (Complements in LAnguage and VIdeo) dataset, a stress-test dataset curated by augmenting real-world videos to have high modality coupling. Consistent with the findings of QUAG, we find that most of the models achieve near-trivial performance on CLAVI. This reasserts the limitations of current models for learning highly-coupled multimodal representations, that is not evaluated by the current datasets. Ishaan Singh Rawal, Alexander Matyasko, Shantanu Jaiswal, Basura Fernando, Cheston Tan |
ICML | 3 |
| 2024 | Zero-Shot Visual Reasoning by Vision-Language Models: Benchmarking and AnalysisabstractVision-language models (VLMs) have shown impressive zero-and few-shot performance on real-world visual question answering (VQA) benchmarks, alluding to their capabilities as visual reasoning engines. However, the benchmarks being used conflate "pure" visual reasoning with world knowledge, and also have questions that involve a limited number of reasoning steps. Thus, it remains unclear whether a VLM’s apparent visual reasoning performance is due to its world knowledge, or due to actual visual reasoning capabilities.To clarify this ambiguity, we systematically benchmark and dissect the zero-shot visual reasoning capabilities of VLMs through synthetic datasets that require minimal world knowledge, and allow for analysis over a broad range of reasoning steps. We focus on two novel aspects of zero-shot visual reasoning: i) evaluating the impact of conveying scene information as either visual embeddings or purely textual scene descriptions to the underlying large language model (LLM) of the VLM, and ii) comparing the effectiveness of chain-of-thought prompting to standard prompting for zero-shot visual reasoning.We find that the underlying LLMs, when provided textual scene descriptions, consistently perform better compared to being provided visual embeddings. In particular, 18% higher accuracy is achieved on the PTR dataset. We also ∼find that CoT prompting performs marginally better than standard prompting only for the comparatively large GPT-3.5-Turbo (175B) model, and does worse for smaller-scale models. This suggests the emergence of CoT abilities for visual reasoning in LLMs at larger scales even when world knowledge is limited. Overall, we find limitations in the abilities of VLMs and LLMs for more complex visual reasoning, and highlight the important role that LLMs can play in visual reasoning. Aishik Nagar, Shantanu Jaiswal, Cheston Tan |
IJCNN | 2 |
| 2024 | Learning to Reason Iteratively and Parallelly for Complex Visual Reasoning ScenariosabstractComplex visual reasoning and question answering (VQA) is a challenging task that requires compositional multi-step processing and higher-level reasoning capabilities beyond the immediate recognition and localization of objects and events. Here, we introduce a fully neural Iterative and Parallel Reasoning Mechanism (IPRM) that combines two distinct forms of computation -- iterative and parallel -- to better address complex VQA scenarios. Specifically, IPRM's "iterative" computation facilitates compositional step-by-step reasoning for scenarios wherein individual operations need to be computed, stored, and recalled dynamically (e.g. when computing the query “determine the color of pen to the left of the child in red t-shirt sitting at the white table”). Meanwhile, its "parallel'' computation allows for the simultaneous exploration of different reasoning paths and benefits more robust and efficient execution of operations that are mutually independent (e.g. when counting individual colors for the query: "determine the maximum occurring color amongst all t-shirts'"). We design IPRM as a lightweight and fully-differentiable neural module that can be conveniently applied to both transformer and non-transformer vision-language backbones. It notably outperforms prior task-specific methods and transformer-based attention modules across various image and video VQA benchmarks testing distinct complex reasoning capabilities such as compositional spatiotemporal reasoning (AGQA), situational reasoning (STAR), multi-hop reasoning generalization (CLEVR-Humans) and causal event linking (CLEVRER-Humans). Further, IPRM's internal computations can be visualized across reasoning steps, aiding interpretability and diagnosis of its errors. Shantanu Jaiswal, Debaditya Roy, Basura Fernando, Cheston Tan |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2022 | TDAM: Top-Down Attention Module for Contextually Guided Feature Selection in CNNs
Shantanu Jaiswal, Basura Fernando, Cheston Tan |
ECCV (25) | 1 |
| 2020 | What do CNNs gain by imitating the visual development of primate infants?
Shantanu Jaiswal, Dongkyu Choi, Basura Fernando |
BMVC | 1 |
| 2020 | How does simulating aspects of primate infant visual development inform training of CNNs?
Shantanu Jaiswal, Dongkyu Choi, Basura Fernando |
CogSci | 1 |