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

Winfried Denk

dblp:84/5831 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
10ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
0000-0002-0704-6998ORCID · 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 · 5Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 3

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Image and video processing
image segmentation
0.332012
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
0.222010
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
0.112012
Seeded watershed cut uncertainty estimators for guided interactive segmentation · CVPR 2012
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › value function estimation
q-function learning
0.112011
Learning to Agglomerate Superpixel Hierarchies · NIPS 2011
Image and video processing › image segmentation
superpixel segmentation
0.112011
Learning to Agglomerate Superpixel Hierarchies · NIPS 2011
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding
boundary detection
0.112010
Boundary Learning by Optimization with Topological Constraints · CVPR 2010
Machine learning › Graph learning
affinity learning
0.112009
Maximin affinity learning of image segmentation · NIPS 2009
Machine learning › Graph learning › graph clustering
graph partitioning
0.112009
Maximin affinity learning of image segmentation · NIPS 2009
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
convolutional neural network
0.112007
Supervised Learning of Image Restoration with Convolutional Networks · ICCV 2007
Image and video processing › image restoration
image denoising
0.112007
Supervised Learning of Image Restoration with Convolutional Networks · ICCV 2007
Image and video processing
image restoration
0.112007
Supervised Learning of Image Restoration with Convolutional Networks · ICCV 2007
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding
3d segmentation
0.012012
Seeded watershed cut uncertainty estimators for guided interactive segmentation · CVPR 2012
Bioinformatics and computational biology › computational neuroscience
connectomics
0.012012
Globally Optimal Closed-Surface Segmentation for Connectomics · ECCV (3) 2012
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
supervised learning
0.012010
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2013 Learning to Segment Neurons with Non-local Quality Measures
Thorben Kröger, Shawn Mikula, Winfried Denk, Ullrich Köthe, Fred A. Hamprecht
MICCAI (2)3
2012 Seeded watershed cut uncertainty estimators for guided interactive segmentation
abstract
Watershed 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
CVPR5
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)4
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.6
2011 Learning to Agglomerate Superpixel Hierarchies
abstract
An 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
NIPS5
2010 Boundary Learning by Optimization with Topological Constraints
abstract
Recent 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
CVPR7
2010 Convolutional Networks Can Learn to Generate Affinity Graphs for Image Segmentation
abstract
Many 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.7
2009 Maximin affinity learning of image segmentation
abstract
Images 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
NIPS4
2009 Axon tracking in serial block-face scanning electron microscopy
Elizabeth Jurrus, Melissa Hardy, Tolga Tasdizen, P. Thomas Fletcher, Pavel Koshevoy, Chi-Bin Chien, Winfried Denk, Ross T. Whitaker
Medical Image Anal.7
2007 Supervised Learning of Image Restoration with Convolutional Networks
abstract
Convolutional 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
ICCV8