Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Moritz Helmstaedter
dblp:44/918
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
0000-0001-7973-0767ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2
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 |
Segmentation and scene understanding · 43% Graph learning · 26% Reinforcement learning · 17% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
2 papers |
Image and video processing · 100% |
Topics — the 11 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding
image segmentation |
0.2 | 2 | 2010 | Boundary Learning by Optimization with Topological Constraints · CVPR 2010 Maximin affinity learning of image segmentation · NIPS 2009 |
Image and video processing
image segmentation |
0.1 | 2 | 2011 | Learning to Agglomerate Superpixel Hierarchies · NIPS 2011 Supervised Learning of Image Restoration with Convolutional Networks · ICCV 2007 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › value function estimation
q-function learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Learning to Agglomerate Superpixel Hierarchies · NIPS 2011 |
Image and video processing › image segmentation
superpixel segmentation |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Learning to Agglomerate Superpixel Hierarchies · NIPS 2011 |
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding
boundary detection |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Boundary Learning by Optimization with Topological Constraints · CVPR 2010 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
affinity learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Maximin affinity learning of image segmentation · NIPS 2009 |
Machine learning › Graph learning › graph clustering
graph partitioning |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Maximin affinity learning of image segmentation · NIPS 2009 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
convolutional neural network |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Supervised Learning of Image Restoration with Convolutional Networks · ICCV 2007 |
Image and video processing › image restoration
image denoising |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Supervised Learning of Image Restoration with Convolutional Networks · ICCV 2007 |
Image and video processing
image restoration |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Supervised Learning of Image Restoration with Convolutional Networks · ICCV 2007 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
supervised learning |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Boundary Learning by Optimization with Topological Constraints · CVPR 2010 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
reinforcement learning · 0.2agglomerative clustering · 0.2anisotropic diffusion · 0.1single-linkage clustering · 0.1single linkage clustering · 0.1warping error · 0.1digital topology · 0.1cost function learning · 0.1maximin affinity learning · 0.1machine learning · 0.1graph partitioning · 0.1markov random field · 0.1gradient learning · 0.1convolutional network · 0.1conditional random field · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 3D segmentation of SBFSEM images of neuropil by a graphical model over supervoxel boundaries
Bjoern Andres, Ullrich Köthe, Thorben Kröger, Moritz Helmstaedter, Kevin L. Briggman, Winfried Denk, Fred A. Hamprecht |
Medical Image Anal. | 4 |
| 2012 | 3D Reconstruction and Standardization of the Rat Vibrissal Cortex for Precise Registration of Single Neuron MorphologyabstractThe three-dimensional (3D) structure of neural circuits is commonly studied by reconstructing individual or small groups of neurons in separate preparations. Investigation of structural organization principles or quantification of dendritic and axonal innervation thus requires integration of many reconstructed morphologies into a common reference frame. Here we present a standardized 3D model of the rat vibrissal cortex and introduce an automated registration tool that allows for precise placement of single neuron reconstructions. We (1) developed an automated image processing pipeline to reconstruct 3D anatomical landmarks, i.e., the barrels in Layer 4, the pia and white matter surfaces and the blood vessel pattern from high-resolution images, (2) quantified these landmarks in 12 different rats, (3) generated an average 3D model of the vibrissal cortex and (4) used rigid transformations and stepwise linear scaling to register 94 neuron morphologies, reconstructed from in vivo stainings, to the standardized cortex model. We find that anatomical landmarks vary substantially across the vibrissal cortex within an individual rat. In contrast, the 3D layout of the entire vibrissal cortex remains remarkably preserved across animals. This allows for precise registration of individual neuron reconstructions with approximately 30 µm accuracy. Our approach could be used to reconstruct and standardize other anatomically defined brain areas and may ultimately lead to a precise digital reference atlas of the rat brain. Robert Egger, Rajeevan T. Narayanan, Moritz Helmstaedter, Christiaan P. J. de Kock, Marcel Oberländer |
PLoS Comput. Biol. | 3 |
| 2011 | Learning to Agglomerate Superpixel HierarchiesabstractAn agglomerative clustering algorithm merges the most similar pair of clusters at every iteration. The function that evaluates similarity is traditionally hand- designed, but there has been recent interest in supervised or semisupervised settings in which ground-truth clustered data is available for training. Here we show how to train a similarity function by regarding it as the action-value function of a reinforcement learning problem. We apply this general method to segment images by clustering superpixels, an application that we call Learning to Agglomerate Superpixel Hierarchies (LASH). When applied to a challenging dataset of brain images from serial electron microscopy, LASH dramatically improved segmentation accuracy when clustering supervoxels generated by state of the boundary detection algorithms. The naive strategy of directly training only supervoxel similarities and applying single linkage clustering produced less improvement. Viren Jain, Srinivas C. Turaga, Kevin L. Briggman, Moritz Helmstaedter, Winfried Denk, H. Sebastian Seung |
NIPS | 4 |
| 2010 | Boundary Learning by Optimization with Topological ConstraintsabstractRecent studies have shown that machine learning can improve the accuracy of detecting object boundaries in images. In the standard approach, a boundary detector is trained by minimizing its pixel-level disagreement with human boundary tracings. This naive metric is problematic because it is overly sensitive to boundary locations. This problem is solved by metrics provided with the Berkeley Segmentation Dataset, but these can be insensitive to topological differences, such as gaps in boundaries. Furthermore, the Berkeley metrics have not been useful as cost functions for supervised learning. Using concepts from digital topology, we propose a new metric called the warping error that tolerates disagreements over boundary location, penalizes topological disagreements, and can be used directly as a cost function for learning boundary detection, in a method that we call Boundary Learning by Optimization with Topological Constraints (BLOTC). We trained boundary detectors on electron microscopic images of neurons, using both BLOTC and standard training. BLOTC produced substantially better performance on a 1.2 million pixel test set, as measured by both the warping error and the Rand index evaluated on segmentations generated from the boundary labelings. We also find our approach yields significantly better segmentation performance than either gPb-OWT-UCM or multiscale normalized cut, as well as Boosted Edge Learning trained directly on our data. Viren Jain, Benjamin Bollmann, Daniel R. Berger, Moritz Helmstaedter, Kevin L. Briggman, Winfried Denk, Jared B. Bowden, John M. Mendenhall, Wickliffe C. Abraham, Kristen M. Harris, Narayanan Kasthuri, Ken J. Hayworth, Richard Schalek, Juan Carlos Tapia, Jeff Lichtman, H. Sebastian Seung |
CVPR | 5 |
| 2010 | Convolutional Networks Can Learn to Generate Affinity Graphs for Image SegmentationabstractMany image segmentation algorithms first generate an affinity graph and then partition it. We present a machine learning approach to computing an affinity graph using a convolutional network (CN) trained using ground truth provided by human experts. The CN affinity graph can be paired with any standard partitioning algorithm and improves segmentation accuracy significantly compared to standard hand-designed affinity functions. We apply our algorithm to the challenging 3D segmentation problem of reconstructing neuronal processes from volumetric electron microscopy (EM) and show that we are able to learn a good affinity graph directly from the raw EM images. Further, we show that our affinity graph improves the segmentation accuracy of both simple and sophisticated graph partitioning algorithms. In contrast to previous work, we do not rely on prior knowledge in the form of hand-designed image features or image preprocessing. Thus, we expect our algorithm to generalize effectively to arbitrary image types. Srinivas C. Turaga, Joseph F. Murray, Viren Jain, Fabian Roth, Moritz Helmstaedter, Kevin L. Briggman, Winfried Denk, H. Sebastian Seung |
Neural Comput. | 5 |
| 2009 | Maximin affinity learning of image segmentationabstractImages can be segmented by first using a classifier to predict an affinity graph that reflects the degree to which image pixels must be grouped together and then partitioning the graph to yield a segmentation. Machine learning has been applied to the affinity classifier to produce affinity graphs that are good in the sense of minimizing edge misclassification rates. However, this error measure is only indirectly related to the quality of segmentations produced by ultimately partitioning the affinity graph. We present the first machine learning algorithm for training a classifier to produce affinity graphs that are good in the sense of producing segmentations that directly minimize the Rand index, a well known segmentation performance measure. The Rand index measures segmentation performance by quantifying the classification of the connectivity of image pixel pairs after segmentation. By using the simple graph partitioning algorithm of finding the connected components of the thresholded affinity graph, we are able to train an affinity classifier to directly minimize the Rand index of segmentations resulting from the graph partitioning. Our learning algorithm corresponds to the learning of maximin affinities between image pixel pairs, which are predictive of the pixel-pair connectivity. Srinivas C. Turaga, Kevin L. Briggman, Moritz Helmstaedter, Winfried Denk, H. Sebastian Seung |
NIPS | 3 |
| 2007 | Supervised Learning of Image Restoration with Convolutional NetworksabstractConvolutional networks have achieved a great deal of success in high-level vision problems such as object recognition. Here we show that they can also be used as a general method for low-level image processing. As an example of our approach, convolutional networks are trained using gradient learning to solve the problem of restoring noisy or degraded images. For our training data, we have used electron microscopic images of neural circuitry with ground truth restorations provided by human experts. On this dataset, Markov random field (MRF), conditional random field (CRF), and anisotropic diffusion algorithms perform about the same as simple thresholding, but superior performance is obtained with a convolutional network containing over 34,000 adjustable parameters. When restored by this convolutional network, the images are clean enough to be used for segmentation, whereas the other approaches fail in this respect. We do not believe that convolutional networks are fundamentally superior to MRFs as a representation for image processing algorithms. On the contrary, the two approaches are closely related. But in practice, it is possible to train complex convolutional networks, while even simple MRF models are hindered by problems with Bayesian learning and inference procedures. Our results suggest that high model complexity is the single most important factor for good performance, and this is possible with convolutional networks. Viren Jain, Joseph F. Murray, Fabian Roth, Srinivas C. Turaga, Valentin P. Zhigulin, Kevin L. Briggman, Moritz Helmstaedter, Winfried Denk, H. Sebastian Seung |
ICCV | 7 |