Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Pengyuan Zhai
dblp:279/6758
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as 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 · 1 · 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
1 paper |
Image recognition and object detection · 38% Deep learning architectures and training · 38% Trustworthy machine learning · 23% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
image classification |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Revisiting Sparse Convolutional Model for Visual Recognition · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › convolutional neural network › convolutional neural network architecture
sparse convolutional networks |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Revisiting Sparse Convolutional Model for Visual Recognition · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial robustness |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Revisiting Sparse Convolutional Model for Visual Recognition · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Revisiting Sparse Convolutional Model for Visual Recognition · NeurIPS 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
differentiable optimization layers · 0.6convolutional sparse coding · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Revisiting Sparse Convolutional Model for Visual RecognitionabstractDespite strong empirical performance for image classification, deep neural networks are often regarded as ``black boxes'' and they are difficult to interpret. On the other hand, sparse convolutional models, which assume that a signal can be expressed by a linear combination of a few elements from a convolutional dictionary, are powerful tools for analyzing natural images with good theoretical interpretability and biological plausibility. However, such principled models have not demonstrated competitive performance when compared with empirically designed deep networks. This paper revisits the sparse convolutional modeling for image classification and bridges the gap between good empirical performance (of deep learning) and good interpretability (of sparse convolutional models). Our method uses differentiable optimization layers that are defined from convolutional sparse coding as drop-in replacements of standard convolutional layers in conventional deep neural networks. We show that such models have equally strong empirical performance on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 and ImageNet datasets when compared to conventional neural networks. By leveraging stable recovery property of sparse modeling, we further show that such models can be much more robust to input corruptions as well as adversarial perturbations in testing through a simple proper trade-off between sparse regularization and data reconstruction terms. Xili Dai, Pengyuan Zhai, Shengbang Tong, Xingjian Gao, Shao-Lun Huang, Zhihui Zhu, Chong You, Yi Ma 0001 |
NeurIPS | 3 |