Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Santiago Galella
dblp:437/9829
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 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
1 paper |
Representation and self-supervised learning · 100% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation analysis
neural representation analysis |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Dimensionality Mismatch Between Brains and Artificial Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning
representation geometry |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Dimensionality Mismatch Between Brains and Artificial Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology
computational neuroscience |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Dimensionality Mismatch Between Brains and Artificial Neural Networks · NeurIPS 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
nonlinear dimensionality · 1.7linear dimensionality · 1.7fMRI · 1.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Dimensionality Mismatch Between Brains and Artificial Neural NetworksabstractBiological and artificial vision systems both rely on hierarchical architectures, yet it remains unclear how their representational geometry evolves across processing stages, and what functional consequences may arise from potential differences. In this work, we systematically quantify and compare the linear and nonlinear dimensionality of human brain activity (fMRI) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) during natural image viewing. In the human ventral visual stream, both dimensionality measures increase along the visual hierarchy, supporting the emergence of semantic and abstract representations. For linear dimensionality, most ANNs show a similar increase, but only for pooled features, emphasizing the importance of appropriate feature readouts in brain–model comparisons. In contrast, nonlinear dimensionality shows a collapse in the later layers of ANNs, pointing at a mismatch in representational geometry between the human and artificial visual systems. This mismatch may have functional consequences: while high-dimensional brain representations support flexible generalization to abstract features, ANNs appear to lose this capacity in later layers, where their representations become overly compressed. Overall, our findings propose dimensionality alignment as a benchmark for building more flexible and biologically grounded vision models. Santiago Galella, Maren H. Wehrheim, Matthias Kaschube |
NeurIPS | 1 |