BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Paul K. Rubenstein

Paul K. Rubenstein contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningComputer VisionMethodology

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Spatial Consistency Loss for Training Multi-Label Classifiers from Single-Label Annotations

As natural images usually contain multiple objects, multi-label image classification is more applicable "in the wild" than single-label classification. However, exhaustively annotating images with every object of interest is costly and time-consuming. We aim to train multi-label classifiers from single-label annotations only. We show that adding a consistency loss, ensuring that the predictions of the network are consistent over consecutive training epochs, is a simple yet effective method to train multi-label classifiers in a weakly supervised setting. We further extend this approach spatially, by ensuring consistency of the spatial feature maps produced over consecutive training epochs, maintaining per-class running-average heatmaps for each training image. We show that this spatial consistency loss further improves the multi-label mAP of the classifiers. In addition, we show that this method overcomes shortcomings of the "crop" data-augmentation by recovering correct supervision signal even when most of the single ground truth object is cropped out of the input image by the data augmentation. We demonstrate gains of the consistency and spatial consistency losses over the binary cross-entropy baseline, and over competing methods, on MS-COCO and Pascal VOC. We also demonstrate improved multi-label classification mAP on ImageNet-1K using the ReaL multi-label validation set.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On Mutual Information Maximization for Representation Learning

Many recent methods for unsupervised or self-supervised representation learning train feature extractors by maximizing an estimate of the mutual information (MI) between different views of the data. This comes with several immediate problems: For example, MI is notoriously hard to estimate, and using it as an objective for representation learning may lead to highly entangled representations due to its invariance under arbitrary invertible transformations. Nevertheless, these methods have been repeatedly shown to excel in practice. In this paper we argue, and provide empirical evidence, that the success of these methods cannot be attributed to the properties of MI alone, and that they strongly depend on the inductive bias in both the choice of feature extractor architectures and the parametrization of the employed MI estimators. Finally, we establish a connection to deep metric learning and argue that this interpretation may be a plausible explanation for the success of the recently introduced methods.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

From Deterministic ODEs to Dynamic Structural Causal Models

Structural Causal Models are widely used in causal modelling, but how they relate to other modelling tools is poorly understood. In this paper we provide a novel perspective on the relationship between Ordinary Differential Equations and Structural Causal Models. We show how, under certain conditions, the asymptotic behaviour of an Ordinary Differential Equation under non-constant interventions can be modelled using Dynamic Structural Causal Models. In contrast to earlier work, we study not only the effect of interventions on equilibrium states; rather, we model asymptotic behaviour that is dynamic under interventions that vary in time, and include as a special case the study of static equilibria.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2017arXiv

Causal Consistency of Structural Equation Models

Complex systems can be modelled at various levels of detail. Ideally, causal models of the same system should be consistent with one another in the sense that they agree in their predictions of the effects of interventions. We formalise this notion of consistency in the case of Structural Equation Models (SEMs) by introducing exact transformations between SEMs. This provides a general language to consider, for instance, the different levels of description in the following three scenarios: (a) models with large numbers of variables versus models in which the `irrelevant' or unobservable variables have been marginalised out; (b) micro-level models versus macro-level models in which the macro-variables are aggregate features of the micro-variables; (c) dynamical time series models versus models of their stationary behaviour. Our analysis stresses the importance of well specified interventions in the causal modelling process and sheds light on the interpretation of cyclic SEMs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access