Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Konstantin Shmelkov
dblp:205/2888
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 2 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3 · 2 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
4 papers |
Image recognition and object detection · 29% Generative modeling · 26% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 19% |
Topics — the 12 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
object detection |
0.6 | 2 | 2017 | Incremental Learning of Object Detectors without Catastrophic Forgetting · ICCV 2017 BlitzNet: A Real-Time Deep Network for Scene Understanding · ICCV 2017 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
density estimation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Adaptive Density Estimation for Generative Models · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › parameter estimation
likelihood-based learning |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Adaptive Density Estimation for Generative Models · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
variational autoencoder |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Adaptive Density Estimation for Generative Models · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
generative adversarial network |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | How Good Is My GAN? · ECCV (2) 2018 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
generative model evaluation |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | How Good Is My GAN? · ECCV (2) 2018 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | How Good Is My GAN? · ECCV (2) 2018 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › continual learning
catastrophic forgetting |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Incremental Learning of Object Detectors without Catastrophic Forgetting · ICCV 2017 |
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection › object detection
incremental object detection |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Incremental Learning of Object Detectors without Catastrophic Forgetting · ICCV 2017 |
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection › object detection › efficient object detection
real-time object detection |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | BlitzNet: A Real-Time Deep Network for Scene Understanding · ICCV 2017 |
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding
scene understanding |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | BlitzNet: A Real-Time Deep Network for Scene Understanding · ICCV 2017 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
incremental learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | Incremental Learning of Object Detectors without Catastrophic Forgetting · ICCV 2017 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
invertible transformations · 0.4adversarial training · 0.4multi-task learning · 0.3loss function · 0.3knowledge distillation · 0.3deep convolutional network · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | Adaptive Density Estimation for Generative ModelsabstractUnsupervised learning of generative models has seen tremendous progress over recent years, in particular due to generative adversarial networks (GANs), variational autoencoders, and flow-based models. GANs have dramatically improved sample quality, but suffer from two drawbacks: (i) they mode-drop, \ie, do not cover the full support of the train data, and (ii) they do not allow for likelihood evaluations on held-out data. In contrast likelihood-based training encourages models to cover the full support of the train data, but yields poorer samples. These mutual shortcomings can in principle be addressed by training generative latent variable models in a hybrid adversarial-likelihood manner. However, we show that commonly made parametric assumptions create a conflict between them, making successful hybrid models non trivial. As a solution, we propose the use of deep invertible transformations in the latent variable decoder. This approach allows for likelihood computations in image space, is more efficient than fully invertible models, and can take full advantage of adversarial training. We show that our model significantly improves over existing hybrid models: offering GAN-like samples, IS and FID scores that are competitive with fully adversarial models and improved likelihood scores. Thomas Lucas 0002, Konstantin Shmelkov, Karteek Alahari, Cordelia Schmid, Jakob Verbeek |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2018 | How Good Is My GAN?
Konstantin Shmelkov, Cordelia Schmid, Karteek Alahari |
ECCV (2) | 1 |
| 2017 | BlitzNet: A Real-Time Deep Network for Scene Understanding
Nikita Dvornik, Konstantin Shmelkov, Julien Mairal, Cordelia Schmid |
ICCV | 2 |
| 2017 | Incremental Learning of Object Detectors without Catastrophic ForgettingabstractDespite their success for object detection, convolutional neural networks are ill-equipped for incremental learning, i.e., adapting the original model trained on a set of classes to additionally detect objects of new classes, in the absence of the initial training data. They suffer from “catastrophic forgetting”-an abrupt degradation of performance on the original set of classes, when the training objective is adapted to the new classes. We present a method to address this issue, and learn object detectors incrementally, when neither the original training data nor annotations for the original classes in the new training set are available. The core of our proposed solution is a loss function to balance the interplay between predictions on the new classes and a new distillation loss which minimizes the discrepancy between responses for old classes from the original and the updated networks. This incremental learning can be performed multiple times, for a new set of classes in each step, with a moderate drop in performance compared to the baseline network trained on the ensemble of data. We present object detection results on the PASCAL VOC 2007 and COCO datasets, along with a detailed empirical analysis of the approach. Konstantin Shmelkov, Cordelia Schmid, Karteek Alahari |
ICCV | 1 |