Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Max Daniels
dblp:257/3016
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021
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 |
Deep learning architectures and training · 38% Graph learning · 36% Generative modeling · 27% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Image and video processing · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Information theory · 100% |
Topics — the 8 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Graph learning › graph neural network › message passing
approximate message passing |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Multi-layer State Evolution Under Random Convolutional Design · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
generative prior |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Invertible generative models for inverse problems: mitigating representation error and dataset bias · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › feedforward neural network
invertible neural network |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Invertible generative models for inverse problems: mitigating representation error and dataset bias · ICML 2020 |
Image and video processing
compressive sensing |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Invertible generative models for inverse problems: mitigating representation error and dataset bias · ICML 2020 |
Image and video processing › mathematical imaging
inverse imaging |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Invertible generative models for inverse problems: mitigating representation error and dataset bias · ICML 2020 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
convolutional neural network |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Multi-layer State Evolution Under Random Convolutional Design · NeurIPS 2022 |
Image and video processing › image restoration
image denoising |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Invertible generative models for inverse problems: mitigating representation error and dataset bias · ICML 2020 |
Image and video processing › image restoration
image inpainting |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Invertible generative models for inverse problems: mitigating representation error and dataset bias · ICML 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
state evolution · 1.1approximate message passing · 1.1regularization · 0.9invertible neural network · 0.9empirical risk minimization · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Multi-layer State Evolution Under Random Convolutional DesignabstractSignal recovery under generative neural network priors has emerged as a promising direction in statistical inference and computational imaging. Theoretical analysis of reconstruction algorithms under generative priors is, however, challenging. For generative priors with fully connected layers and Gaussian i.i.d. weights, this was achieved by the multi-layer approximate message (ML-AMP) algorithm via a rigorous state evolution. However, practical generative priors are typically convolutional, allowing for computational benefits and inductive biases, and so the Gaussian i.i.d. weight assumption is very limiting. In this paper, we overcome this limitation and establish the state evolution of ML-AMP for random convolutional layers. We prove in particular that random convolutional layers belong to the same universality class as Gaussian matrices. Our proof technique is of an independent interest as it establishes a mapping between convolutional matrices and spatially coupled sensing matrices used in coding theory. Max Daniels, Cédric Gerbelot, Florent Krzakala, Lenka Zdeborová |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2020 | Invertible generative models for inverse problems: mitigating representation error and dataset biasabstractTrained generative models have shown remarkable performance as priors for inverse problems in imaging – for example, Generative Adversarial Network priors permit recovery of test images from 5-10x fewer measurements than sparsity priors. Unfortunately, these models may be unable to represent any particular image because of architectural choices, mode collapse, and bias in the training dataset. In this paper, we demonstrate that invertible neural networks, which have zero representation error by design, can be effective natural signal priors at inverse problems such as denoising, compressive sensing, and inpainting. Given a trained generative model, we study the empirical risk formulation of the desired inverse problem under a regularization that promotes high likelihood images, either directly by penalization or algorithmically by initialization. For compressive sensing, invertible priors can yield higher accuracy than sparsity priors across almost all undersampling ratios, and due to their lack of representation error, invertible priors can yield better reconstructions than GAN priors for images that have rare features of variation within the biased training set, including out-of-distribution natural images. We additionally compare performance for compressive sensing to unlearned methods, such as the deep decoder, and we establish theoretical bounds on expected recovery error in the case of a linear invertible model. Muhammad Asim 0005, Max Daniels, Oscar Leong, Ali Ahmed 0004, Paul Hand |
ICML | 2 |