Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Gary M. Kuhn
dblp:33/4527
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
recurrent neural network |
0.0 | 1 | 1991 | 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 |
0.0 | 1 | 1991 | Induction of Finite-State Automata Using Second-Order Recurrent Networks · NIPS 1991 |
Automata and formal languages › grammatical inference
automata learning |
0.0 | 1 | 1991 | Induction of Finite-State Automata Using Second-Order Recurrent Networks · NIPS 1991 |
Automata and formal languages
finite automata |
0.0 | 1 | 1991 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
NIPS | 5 |
| 1994 | Dynamic recurrent neural networks: Theory and applicationsabstractThis 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 NetworksabstractSecond-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 |
NIPS | 2 |
| 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 speechabstractResults 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 |
ICASSP | 1 |