Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Marc Henniges

dblp:74/8509 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

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
Representation and self-supervised learning · 25% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 25% Learning paradigms · 12%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › blind source separation
independent component analysis
0.212014
Efficient occlusive components analysis · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2014
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models
latent variable model
0.212014
Efficient occlusive components analysis · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2014
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection › object detection
component-based detection
0.112009
Occlusive Components Analysis · NIPS 2009
Machine learning › Generative modeling
generative model
0.112009
Occlusive Components Analysis · NIPS 2009
Computer vision › 3D vision › 3d scene understanding › occlusion reasoning
occlusion modeling
0.112009
Occlusive Components Analysis · NIPS 2009
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
unsupervised learning
0.112009
Occlusive Components Analysis · NIPS 2009

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

occlusive components analysis · 0.2maximum likelihood · 0.1expectation-maximization · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 Efficient occlusive components analysis
Marc Henniges, Richard E. Turner, Maneesh Sahani, Julian Eggert, Jörg Lücke
J. Mach. Learn. Res.1
2013 Are V1 Simple Cells Optimized for Visual Occlusions? A Comparative Study
abstract
Simple cells in primary visual cortex were famously found to respond to low-level image components such as edges. Sparse coding and independent component analysis (ICA) emerged as the standard computational models for simple cell coding because they linked their receptive fields to the statistics of visual stimuli. However, a salient feature of image statistics, occlusions of image components, is not considered by these models. Here we ask if occlusions have an effect on the predicted shapes of simple cell receptive fields. We use a comparative approach to answer this question and investigate two models for simple cells: a standard linear model and an occlusive model. For both models we simultaneously estimate optimal receptive fields, sparsity and stimulus noise. The two models are identical except for their component superposition assumption. We find the image encoding and receptive fields predicted by the models to differ significantly. While both models predict many Gabor-like fields, the occlusive model predicts a much sparser encoding and high percentages of 'globular' receptive fields. This relatively new center-surround type of simple cell response is observed since reverse correlation is used in experimental studies. While high percentages of 'globular' fields can be obtained using specific choices of sparsity and overcompleteness in linear sparse coding, no or only low proportions are reported in the vast majority of studies on linear models (including all ICA models). Likewise, for the here investigated linear model and optimal sparsity, only low proportions of 'globular' fields are observed. In comparison, the occlusive model robustly infers high proportions and can match the experimentally observed high proportions of 'globular' fields well. Our computational study, therefore, suggests that 'globular' fields may be evidence for an optimal encoding of visual occlusions in primary visual cortex.
Jörg Bornschein, Marc Henniges, Jörg Lücke
PLoS Comput. Biol.2
2009 Occlusive Components Analysis
abstract
We study unsupervised learning in a probabilistic generative model for occlusion. The model uses two types of latent variables: one indicates which objects are present in the image, and the other how they are ordered in depth. This depth order then determines how the positions and appearances of the objects present, specified in the model parameters, combine to form the image. We show that the object parameters can be learnt from an unlabelled set of images in which objects occlude one another. Exact maximum-likelihood learning is intractable. However, we show that tractable approximations to Expectation Maximization (EM) can be found if the training images each contain only a small number of objects on average. In numerical experiments it is shown that these approximations recover the correct set of object parameters. Experiments on a novel version of the bars test using colored bars, and experiments on more realistic data, show that the algorithm performs well in extracting the generating causes. Experiments based on the standard bars benchmark test for object learning show that the algorithm performs well in comparison to other recent component extraction approaches. The model and the learning algorithm thus connect research on occlusion with the research field of multiple-cause component extraction methods.
Jörg Lücke, Richard E. Turner, Maneesh Sahani, Marc Henniges
NIPS4