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

Gary M. Kuhn

dblp:33/4527 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 1995
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 first-author

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
Deep learning architectures and training · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automata and formal languages · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Energy systems and smart grids · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
recurrent neural network
0.011991
Induction of Finite-State Automata Using Second-Order Recurrent Networks · NIPS 1991
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › recurrent neural network
second-order recurrent networks
0.011991
Induction of Finite-State Automata Using Second-Order Recurrent Networks · NIPS 1991
Automata and formal languages › grammatical inference
automata learning
0.011991
Induction of Finite-State Automata Using Second-Order Recurrent Networks · NIPS 1991
Automata and formal languages
finite automata
0.011991
Induction of Finite-State Automata Using Second-Order Recurrent Networks · NIPS 1991

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

neural network autoassociator · 0.0recurrent neural network · 0.0grammatical inference · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1995 A Neural Network Autoassociator for Induction Motor Failure Prediction
Thomas Petsche, Angelo Marcantonio, Christian J. Darken, Stephen Jose Hanson, Gary M. Kuhn, N. Iwan Santoso
NIPS5
1994 Dynamic recurrent neural networks: Theory and applications
abstract
This special issue illustrates both the scientific trends of the early work in recurrent neural networks, and the mathematics of training when at least some recurrent terms of the network derivatives can be non-zero. Herein is a brief description of each of the papers. We have organized this description into two parts. The first part contains the papers that are mainly theoretical, and the second part contains the papers that are mainly applications. The order of papers is alphabetical by first author.
C. Lee Giles, Gary M. Kuhn, Ronald J. Williams
IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst.2
1992 Induction of Finite-State Languages Using Second-Order Recurrent Networks
abstract
Second-order recurrent networks that recognize simple finite state languages over {0,1}* are induced from positive and negative examples. Using the complete gradient of the recurrent network and sufficient training examples to constrain the definition of the language to be induced, solutions are obtained that correctly recognize strings of arbitrary length.
Raymond L. Watrous, Gary M. Kuhn
Neural Comput.2
1991 Induction of Finite-State Automata Using Second-Order Recurrent Networks
Raymond L. Watrous, Gary M. Kuhn
NIPS2
1990 Connected recognition with a recurrent network
Gary M. Kuhn, Raymond L. Watrous, Bruce Ladendorf
Speech Commun.1
1982 On talker-independent word recognition in continuous speech
abstract
Results are presented from an experiment on talker-independent word recognition in which three experimental parameters were manipulated. Those parameters were 1) whether the word model had a mean vector and a variance vector, or a mean vector and a covariance matrix, at each time frame; 2) whether a single estimate was made of the word model or whether there was one re-estimate; and 3) whether word recognition was based on a Pass 1 distance score or on a novel Pass 2 log odds score. The results were 1) a multivariate word model did not do better than a word model based on a sum of univariate distributions; 2) a re-estimated word model did better than a word model based on initial estimates; and 3) the Pass 2 log odds score did better than the Pass 1 distance score.
Gary M. Kuhn
ICASSP1