Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Matthias Kümmerer
dblp:151/6291
· DBLP profile ↗
10ranked-venue papers
3as first author
6since 2021 · last 2026
0000-0001-9644-4703ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 9 · 3 first-author · 5 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 6 · 3 first-author · 3 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
9 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 44% Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 19% 3D vision · 13% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
2 papers |
Image and video processing · 50% Visualization and visual analytics · 50% |
Topics — the 25 heaviest of 27, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
1.3 | 3 | 2025 | What Moves the Eyes: Doubling Mechanistic Model Performance Using Deep Networks to Discover and Test Cognitive Hypotheses · NeurIPS 2025 Saliency Benchmarking Made Easy: Separating Models, Maps and Metrics · ECCV (16) 2018 Measuring the Importance of Temporal Features in Video Saliency · ECCV (28) 2020 |
Visualization and visual analytics › visual saliency
fixation prediction |
1.2 | 2 | 2025 | Modeling Saliency Dataset Bias · ICCV 2025 Understanding Low- and High-Level Contributions to Fixation Prediction · ICCV 2017 |
Image and video processing
saliency detection |
1.2 | 2 | 2025 | Modeling Saliency Dataset Bias · ICCV 2025 Understanding Low- and High-Level Contributions to Fixation Prediction · ICCV 2017 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
dataset bias |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Modeling Saliency Dataset Bias · ICCV 2025 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
domain generalization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Modeling Saliency Dataset Bias · ICCV 2025 |
Computer vision › 3D vision › biological vision modeling
scanpath prediction |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | What Moves the Eyes: Doubling Mechanistic Model Performance Using Deep Networks to Discover and Test Cognitive Hypotheses · NeurIPS 2025 |
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding › image segmentation › binary segmentation
foreground-background segmentation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Object segmentation from common fate: Motion energy processing enables human-like zero-shot generalization to random dot stimuli · NeurIPS 2024 |
Computer vision › 3D vision › motion estimation
optical flow |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Object segmentation from common fate: Motion energy processing enables human-like zero-shot generalization to random dot stimuli · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › lifelong learning
continual adaptation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | RDumb: A simple approach that questions our progress in continual test-time adaptation · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation › test-time adaptation
continual test-time adaptation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | RDumb: A simple approach that questions our progress in continual test-time adaptation · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
distribution shift |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | RDumb: A simple approach that questions our progress in continual test-time adaptation · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | RDumb: A simple approach that questions our progress in continual test-time adaptation · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
test-time adaptation |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | RDumb: A simple approach that questions our progress in continual test-time adaptation · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › calibration
confidence calibration |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | DeepGaze IIE: Calibrated prediction in and out-of-domain for state-of-the-art saliency modeling · ICCV 2021 |
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
saliency prediction |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | DeepGaze IIE: Calibrated prediction in and out-of-domain for state-of-the-art saliency modeling · ICCV 2021 |
Computer vision › Video understanding and tracking
video saliency prediction |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Measuring the Importance of Temporal Features in Video Saliency · ECCV (28) 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial attack |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Accurate, reliable and fast robustness evaluation · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial robustness |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Accurate, reliable and fast robustness evaluation · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness evaluation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Accurate, reliable and fast robustness evaluation · NeurIPS 2019 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › neural network representation learning › deep representation learning
deep feature representation |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Understanding Low- and High-Level Contributions to Fixation Prediction · ICCV 2017 |
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
object recognition |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Understanding Low- and High-Level Contributions to Fixation Prediction · ICCV 2017 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › neural network theory
deep network analysis |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | What Moves the Eyes: Doubling Mechanistic Model Performance Using Deep Networks to Discover and Test Cognitive Hypotheses · NeurIPS 2025 |
Performance modeling and evaluation
benchmarking |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Modeling Saliency Dataset Bias · ICCV 2025 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
zero-shot transfer |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Object segmentation from common fate: Motion energy processing enables human-like zero-shot generalization to random dot stimuli · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
feature importance |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Measuring the Importance of Temporal Features in Video Saliency · ECCV (28) 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
encoder-decoder architecture · 2.6dataset-specific parameter adaptation · 2.6mechanistic modeling · 0.9deep learning · 0.9psychophysical study · 0.8motion energy model · 0.8periodic resetting · 0.7benchmark evaluation · 0.7transfer learning · 0.5ensemble · 0.5readout architecture · 0.3deep neural network features · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Isolating the Role of Temporal Information in Video Saliency: A Controlled Experimental AnalysisabstractThe role of temporal information in predicting human gaze in dynamic scenes remains a critical open question, underscored by the paradoxical finding that strong static models can outperform complex video-based models. This suggests that the true contribution of temporal cues has been obscured by confounding architectural variables. To resolve this, we present a rigorous, controlled experiment centered on a minimal architectural pair: a spatio-temporal saliency model (UniformerSal-ST) and its identical spatial-only counterpart (UniformerSal-S), designed to unambiguously isolate the impact of temporal feature integration. Our results demonstrate that principled temporal fusion yields a substantial Information Gain (IG) of +0.20 bits on temporally coherent datasets like LEDOV. Crucially, our controlled comparison also uncovers a key failure mode: on datasets with frequent hard cuts like DIEM, the same mechanism degrades performance, incurring a 0.07 bits IG deficit. We provide a mechanistic explanation for this dichotomy, revealing how certain visual scenarios (scene discontinuities, rapid camera zooms) can disrupt current temporal fusion approaches. By precisely quantifying both the benefits and drawbacks of temporal processing, our work provides the community with clear, actionable insights into when and why temporal information should be modeled for more robust and accurate video saliency prediction. The code will be made available at https: //github.com/peterjiz/uniformersal Peter El-Jiz, Matthias Kümmerer, Matthias Tangemann, Matthias Bethge, Andreas M. Bartels, Michael M. Bannert |
WACV | 2 |
| 2025 | Modeling Saliency Dataset BiasabstractRecent advances in image-based saliency prediction are approaching gold standard performance levels on existing benchmarks. Despite this success, we show that predicting fixations across multiple saliency datasets remains challenging due to dataset bias. We find a significant performance drop (around 40%) when models trained on one dataset are applied to another. Surprisingly, increasing dataset diversity does not resolve this inter-dataset gap, with close to 60% attributed to dataset-specific biases. To address this remaining generalization gap, we propose a novel architecture extending a mostly dataset-agnostic encoder-decoder structure with fewer than 20 dataset-specific parameters that govern interpretable mechanisms such as multi-scale structure, center bias, and fixation spread. Adapting only these parameters to new data accounts for more than 75% of the generalization gap, with a large fraction of the improvement achieved with as few as 50 samples. Our model sets a new state-of-the-art on all three datasets of the MIT/Tuebingen Saliency Benchmark (MIT300, CAT2000, and COCO-Freeview), even when purely generalizing from unrelated datasets, but with a substantial boost when adapting to the respective training datasets. The model also provides valuable insights into spatial saliency properties, revealing complex multi-scale effects that combine both absolute and relative sizes. Matthias Kümmerer, Harneet Singh Khanuja, Matthias Bethge |
ICCV | 1 |
| 2025 | What Moves the Eyes: Doubling Mechanistic Model Performance Using Deep Networks to Discover and Test Cognitive HypothesesabstractUnderstanding how humans move their eyes to gather visual information is a central question in neuroscience, cognitive science, and vision research. While recent deep learning (DL) models achieve state-of-the-art performance in predicting human scanpaths, their underlying decision processes remain opaque. At an opposite end of the modeling spectrum, cognitively inspired mechanistic models aim to explain scanpath behavior through interpretable cognitive mechanisms but lag far behind in predictive accuracy. In this work, we bridge this gap by using a high-performing deep model—DeepGaze III—to discover and test mechanisms that improve a leading mechanistic model, SceneWalk. By identifying individual fixations where DeepGaze III succeeds and SceneWalk fails, we isolate behaviorally meaningful discrepancies and use them to motivate targeted extensions of the mechanistic framework. These include time-dependent temperature scaling, saccadic momentum and an adaptive cardinal attention bias: Simple, interpretable additions that substantially boost predictive performance. With these extensions, SceneWalk’s explained variance on the MIT1003 dataset doubles from 35% to 70%, setting a new state of the art in mechanistic scanpath prediction. Our findings show how performance-optimized neural networks can serve as tools for cognitive model discovery, offering a new path toward interpretable and high-performing models of visual behavior. Our code is available at https://github.com/bethgelab/what-moves-the-eyes Federico D'Agostino, Lisa Schwetlick, Matthias Bethge, Matthias Kümmerer |
NeurIPS | 4 |
| 2024 | Object segmentation from common fate: Motion energy processing enables human-like zero-shot generalization to random dot stimuliabstractHumans excel at detecting and segmenting moving objects according to the {\it Gestalt} principle of “common fate”. Remarkably, previous works have shown that human perception generalizes this principle in a zero-shot fashion to unseen textures or random dots. In this work, we seek to better understand the computational basis for this capability by evaluating a broad range of optical flow models and a neuroscience inspired motion energy model for zero-shot figure-ground segmentation of random dot stimuli. Specifically, we use the extensively validated motion energy model proposed by Simoncelli and Heeger in 1998 which is fitted to neural recordings in cortex area MT. We find that a cross section of 40 deep optical flow models trained on different datasets struggle to estimate motion patterns in random dot videos, resulting in poor figure-ground segmentation performance. Conversely, the neuroscience-inspired model significantly outperforms all optical flow models on this task. For a direct comparison to human perception, we conduct a psychophysical study using a shape identification task as a proxy to measure human segmentation performance. All state-of-the-art optical flow models fall short of human performance, but only the motion energy model matches human capability. This neuroscience-inspired model successfully addresses the lack of human-like zero-shot generalization to random dot stimuli in current computer vision models, and thus establishes a compelling link between the Gestalt psychology of human object perception and cortical motion processing in the brain.
Code, models and datasets are available at https://github.com/mtangemann/motion_energy_segmentation Matthias Tangemann, Matthias Kümmerer, Matthias Bethge |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2023 | RDumb: A simple approach that questions our progress in continual test-time adaptationabstractTest-Time Adaptation (TTA) allows to update pre-trained models to changing data distributions at deployment time. While early work tested these algorithms for individual fixed distribution shifts, recent work proposed and applied methods for continual adaptation over long timescales. To examine the reported progress in the field, we propose the Continually Changing Corruptions (CCC) benchmark to measure asymptotic performance of TTA techniques. We find that eventually all but one state-of-the-art methods collapse and perform worse than a non-adapting model, including models specifically proposed to be robust to performance collapse. In addition, we introduce a simple baseline, "RDumb", that periodically resets the model to its pretrained state. RDumb performs better or on par with the previously proposed state-of-the-art in all considered benchmarks.
Our results show that previous TTA approaches are neither effective at regularizing adaptation to avoid collapse nor able to outperform a simplistic resetting strategy. Ori Press, Steffen Schneider 0001, Matthias Kümmerer, Matthias Bethge |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2021 | DeepGaze IIE: Calibrated prediction in and out-of-domain for state-of-the-art saliency modelingabstractSince 2014 transfer learning has become the key driver for the improvement of spatial saliency prediction—however, with stagnant progress in the last 3-5 years. We conduct a large-scale transfer learning study which tests different ImageNet backbones, always using the same read out architecture and learning protocol adopted from DeepGaze II. By replacing the VGG19 backbone of DeepGaze II with ResNet50 features we improve the performance on saliency prediction from 78% to 85%. However, as we continue to test better ImageNet models as backbones—such as EfficientNetB5—we observe no additional improvement on saliency prediction. By analyzing the backbones further, we find that generalization to other datasets differs substantially, with models being consistently overconfident in their fixation predictions. We show that by combining multiple backbones in a principled manner a good confidence calibration on unseen datasets can be achieved. This new model "DeepGaze IIE" yields a significant leap in benchmark performance in and out-of-domain with a 15 percent point improvement over DeepGaze II to 93% on MIT1003, marking a new state of the art on the MIT/Tuebingen Saliency Benchmark in all available metrics (AUC: 88.3%, sAUC: 79.4%, CC: 82.4%). Akis Linardos, Matthias Kümmerer, Ori Press, Matthias Bethge |
ICCV | 2 |
| 2020 | Measuring the Importance of Temporal Features in Video Saliency
Matthias Tangemann, Matthias Kümmerer, Thomas S. A. Wallis, Matthias Bethge |
ECCV (28) | 2 |
| 2019 | Accurate, reliable and fast robustness evaluationabstractThroughout the past five years, the susceptibility of neural networks to minimal adversarial perturbations has moved from a peculiar phenomenon to a core issue in Deep Learning. Despite much attention, however, progress towards more robust models is significantly impaired by the difficulty of evaluating the robustness of neural network models. Today's methods are either fast but brittle (gradient-based attacks), or they are fairly reliable but slow (score- and decision-based attacks). We here develop a new set of gradient-based adversarial attacks which (a) are more reliable in the face of gradient-masking than other gradient-based attacks, (b) perform better and are more query efficient than current state-of-the-art gradient-based attacks, (c) can be flexibly adapted to a wide range of adversarial criteria and (d) require virtually no hyperparameter tuning. These findings are carefully validated across a diverse set of six different models and hold for L0, L1, L2 and Linf in both targeted as well as untargeted scenarios. Implementations will soon be available in all major toolboxes (Foolbox, CleverHans and ART). We hope that this class of attacks will make robustness evaluations easier and more reliable, thus contributing to more signal in the search for more robust machine learning models. Wieland Brendel, Jonas Rauber, Matthias Kümmerer, Ivan Ustyuzhaninov, Matthias Bethge |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2018 | Saliency Benchmarking Made Easy: Separating Models, Maps and Metrics
Matthias Kümmerer, Thomas S. A. Wallis, Matthias Bethge |
ECCV (16) | 1 |
| 2017 | Understanding Low- and High-Level Contributions to Fixation PredictionabstractUnderstanding where people look in images is an important problem in computer vision. Despite significant research, it remains unclear to what extent human fixations can be predicted by low-level (contrast) compared to highlevel (presence of objects) image features. Here we address this problem by introducing two novel models that use different feature spaces but the same readout architecture. The first model predicts human fixations based on deep neural network features trained on object recognition. This model sets a new state-of-the art in fixation prediction by achieving top performance in area under the curve metrics on the MIT300 hold-out benchmark (AUC = 88%, sAUC = 77%, NSS = 2.34). The second model uses purely low-level (isotropic contrast) features. This model achieves better performance than all models not using features pretrained on object recognition, making it a strong baseline to assess the utility of high-level features. We then evaluate and visualize which fixations are better explained by lowlevel compared to high-level image features. Surprisingly we find that a substantial proportion of fixations are better explained by the simple low-level model than the stateof- the-art model. Comparing different features within the same powerful readout architecture allows us to better understand the relevance of low- versus high-level features in predicting fixation locations, while simultaneously achieving state-of-the-art saliency prediction. Matthias Kümmerer, Thomas S. A. Wallis, Leon A. Gatys, Matthias Bethge |
ICCV | 1 |