Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Magalie Fromont
dblp:98/4189
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 3 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 |
Learning theory · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Learning theory
classification |
0.1 | 2 | 2006 | Functional Classification with Margin Conditions · COLT 2006 Model Selection by Bootstrap Penalization for Classification · COLT 2004 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds › margin theory
margin conditions |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | Functional Classification with Margin Conditions · COLT 2006 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
model selection |
0.0 | 1 | 2004 | Model Selection by Bootstrap Penalization for Classification · COLT 2004 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization bounds |
0.0 | 1 | 2006 | Functional Classification with Margin Conditions · COLT 2006 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
margin theory · 0.1penalization · 0.0bootstrap · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Surrogate Data Methods Based on a Shuffling of the Trials for Synchrony Detection: The Centering IssueabstractWe investigate several distribution-free dependence detection procedures, all based on a shuffling of the trials, from a statistical point of view. The mathematical justification of such procedures lies in the bootstrap principle and its approximation properties. In particular, we show that such a shuffling has mainly to be done on centered quantities-that is, quantities with zero mean under independence-to construct correct p-values, meaning that the corresponding tests control their false positive (FP) rate. Thanks to this study, we introduce a method, named permutation UE, which consists of a multiple testing procedure based on permutation of experimental trials and delayed coincidence count. Each involved single test of this procedure achieves the prescribed level, so that the corresponding multiple testing procedure controls the false discovery rate (FDR), and this with as few assumptions as possible on the underneath distribution, except independence and identical distribution across trials. The mathematical meaning of this assumption is discussed, and it is in particular argued that it does not mean what is commonly referred in neuroscience to as cross-trials stationarity. Some simulations show, moreover, that permutation UE outperforms the trial-shuffling of Pipa and Grün ( 2003 ) and the MTGAUE method of Tuleau-Malot et al. ( 2014 ) in terms of single levels and FDR, for a comparable amount of false negatives. Application to real data is also provided. Mélisande Albert, Yann Bouret, Magalie Fromont, Patricia Reynaud-Bouret |
Neural Comput. | 3 |
| 2007 | Model selection by bootstrap penalization for classification
Magalie Fromont |
Mach. Learn. | 1 |
| 2006 | Functional Classification with Margin Conditions
Magalie Fromont, Christine Tuleau |
COLT | 1 |
| 2004 | Model Selection by Bootstrap Penalization for Classification
Magalie Fromont |
COLT | 1 |