Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Kevin L. Briggman
dblp:75/6528
· DBLP profile ↗
8ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
0000-0003-2946-4661ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 4Applied, 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
6 papers |
Segmentation and scene understanding · 54% Graph learning · 21% Reinforcement learning · 14% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
3 papers |
Image and video processing · 100% |
Topics — the 14 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Image and video processing
image segmentation |
0.3 | 3 | 2012 | Seeded watershed cut uncertainty estimators for guided interactive segmentation · CVPR 2012 Learning to Agglomerate Superpixel Hierarchies · NIPS 2011 Supervised Learning of Image Restoration with Convolutional Networks · ICCV 2007 |
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
interactive segmentation |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Seeded watershed cut uncertainty estimators for guided interactive segmentation · CVPR 2012 |
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 |
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding
3d segmentation |
0.0 | 1 | 2012 | Seeded watershed cut uncertainty estimators for guided interactive segmentation · CVPR 2012 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › computational neuroscience
connectomics |
0.0 | 1 | 2012 | Globally Optimal Closed-Surface Segmentation for Connectomics · ECCV (3) 2012 |
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
watershed cut · 0.3uncertainty estimation · 0.3active learning · 0.3reinforcement learning · 0.2agglomerative clustering · 0.2single-linkage clustering · 0.1single linkage clustering · 0.1warping error · 0.1digital topology · 0.1cost function learning · 0.1graph partitioning · 0.1gradient learning · 0.1convolutional network · 0.1conditional random field · 0.1anisotropic diffusion · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | Seeded watershed cut uncertainty estimators for guided interactive segmentationabstractWatershed cuts are among the fastest segmentation algorithms and therefore well suited for interactive segmentation of very large 3D data sets. To minimize the number of user interactions (“seeds”) required until the result is correct, we want the computer to actively query the human for input at the most critical locations, in analogy to active learning. These locations are found by means of suitable uncertainty measures. We propose various such measures for watershed cuts along with a theoretical analysis of some of their properties. Extensive evaluation on two types of 3D electron microscopic volumes of neural tissue shows that measures which estimate the non-local consequences of new user inputs achieve performance close to an oracle endowed with complete knowledge of the ground truth. Christoph N. Straehle, Ullrich Köthe, Graham Knott, Kevin L. Briggman, Winfried Denk, Fred A. Hamprecht |
CVPR | 4 |
| 2012 | Globally Optimal Closed-Surface Segmentation for Connectomics
Bjoern Andres, Thorben Kröger, Kevin L. Briggman, Winfried Denk, Natalya Korogod, Graham Knott, Ullrich Köthe, Fred A. Hamprecht |
ECCV (3) | 3 |
| 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. | 5 |
| 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 | 3 |
| 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 | 6 |
| 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. | 6 |
| 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 | 2 |
| 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 | 6 |