Wray Lindsay Buntine

Prof. Wray Lindsay Buntine

1. Department of Data Science and AI, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
+1
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

40Years (1987-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 April 1996 in IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Wray Lindsay BuntineWray Lindsay Buntine
Wray Lindsay Buntine
The literature review presented discusses different methods under the general rubric of learning Bayesian networks from data, and includes some overlapping work on more general probabilistic networks. Connections are drawn between the statistical, neural network, and uncertainty communities, and between the different methodological communities, such as Bayesian, description length, and classical statistics. Basic concepts for learning and Bayesian networks are introduced and methods are then reviewed. Methods are discussed for learning parameters of a probabilistic network, for learning the structure, and for learning hidden variables. The article avoids formal definitions and theorems, as these are plentiful in the literature, and instead illustrates key concepts with simplified examples.

28 July 2013
Verified
Conference Paper
Open access
PDF file
RMRishabh Mehrotra
Rishabh Mehrotra
SSScott Sanner
Scott Sanner
Wray Lindsay BuntineWray Lindsay Buntine
Wray Lindsay Buntine
LXLexing Xie
Lexing Xie
Twitter, or the world of 140 characters poses serious challenges to the efficacy of topic models on short, messy text. While topic models such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) have a long history of successful application to news articles and academic abstracts, they are often less coherent when applied to microblog content like Twitter. In this paper, we investigate methods to improve topics learned from Twitter content without modifying the basic machinery of LDA; we achieve this through various pooling schemes that aggregate tweets in a data preprocessing step for LDA. We empirically establish that a novel method of tweet pooling by hashtags leads to a vast improvement in a variety of measures for topic coherence across three diverse Twitter datasets in comparison to an unmodified LDA baseline and a variety of pooling schemes. An additional contribution of automatic hashtag labeling further improves on the hashtag pooling results for a subset of metrics. Overall, these two novel schemes lead to significantly improved LDA topic models on Twitter content.

1 June 1992 in Statistics and Computing
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Wray Lindsay BuntineWray Lindsay Buntine
Wray Lindsay Buntine

25 July 2009 in International Journal of Computer Vision
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TTTinne Tuytelaars
Tinne Tuytelaars
CLChristoph H. Lampert
Christoph H. Lampert
MBMatthew B. Blaschko
Matthew B. Blaschko
Wray Lindsay BuntineWray Lindsay Buntine
Wray Lindsay Buntine
The goal of this paper is to evaluate and compare models and methods for learning to recognize basic entities in images in an unsupervised setting. In other words, we want to discover the objects present in the images by analyzing unlabeled data and searching for re-occurring patterns. We experiment with various baseline methods, methods based on latent variable models, as well as spectral clustering methods. The results are presented and compared both on subsets of Caltech256 and MSRC2, data sets that are larger and more challenging and that include more object classes than what has previously been reported in the literature. A rigorous framework for evaluating unsupervised object discovery methods is proposed.

1 May 2023 in Artificial Intelligence Review
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CLCaitlin Doogan Poet Laureate
Caitlin Doogan Poet Laureate
Wray Lindsay BuntineWray Lindsay Buntine
Wray Lindsay Buntine
HLHenry Linger
Henry Linger
Recently, research on short text topic models has addressed the challenges of social media datasets. These models are typically evaluated using automated measures. However, recent work suggests that these evaluation measures do not inform whether the topics produced can yield meaningful insights for those examining social media data. Efforts to address this issue, including gauging the alignment between automated and human evaluation tasks, are hampered by a lack of knowledge about how researchers use topic models. Further problems could arise if researchers do not construct topic models optimally or use them in a way that exceeds the models’ limitations. These scenarios threaten the validity of topic model development and the insights produced by researchers employing topic modelling as a methodology. However, there is currently a lack of information about how and why topic models are used in applied research. As such, we performed a systematic literature review of 189 articles where topic modelling was used for social media analysis to understand how and why topic models are used for social media analysis. Our results suggest that the development of topic models is not aligned with the needs of those who use them for social media analysis. We have found that researchers use topic models sub-optimally. There is a lack of methodological support for researchers to build and interpret topics. We offer a set of recommendations for topic model researchers to address these problems and bridge the gap between development and applied research on short text topic models.

1 September 1988 in Artificial Intelligence
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Wray Lindsay BuntineWray Lindsay Buntine
Wray Lindsay Buntine