2 Postdoc positions in PAVIS on automatic visual inspection – [ Postdoc ]
Workplace: Genova, IIT Central Research Lab Genova
Added on: 30/01/2017 – Expires on: 15/02/2017
The Pattern Analysis and Computer Vision (PAVIS) Research Line at IIT is looking for highly qualified candidates with a strong background in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, with particular emphasis on automatic visual inspection applications and other related areas (e.g., recognition, video analysis, etc.).
The main mission of PAVIS is to design and develop innovative image- and video-based intelligent systems, characterized by the use of highly functional smart sensors and advanced data analytics features. PAVIS also plays an active role in supporting the other IIT Research Lines providing scientists in Neuroscience, Nanophysics and other IIT Lines with ad hoc solutions.
To this end, the group is involved in activities concerning computer vision and pattern recognition, machine learning, multimodal data analysis and sensor fusion, and embedded computer vision systems. The lab will pursue this goal by working collaboratively and in cooperation with external private and public partners.
This call aims at consolidating PAVIS expertise in the research area of automatic visual inspection in the context of highly efficient industrial applications. The research theme is related to the creation of a novel system that can inspect industrial parts in extreme environments. The system has to detect damages over the parts like cracks and fissures using different sensor modalities. This implies the development of novel algorithms for object detection, classification and quality control that discriminate explicitly the photometric and physical attributes of each object part. In particular, this new inspection problem will require the study of different types of features as the one extracted in deep learning frameworks, as well as robust and effective methodologies.
This project will be managed in collaboration with a major industrial partner.
Candidates to this position have a Ph.D. in computer vision, pattern recognition or related areas, and research experience and qualification should follow the same lines. Evidence of top quality research on the above specified areas in the form of published papers in top conferences/journals and/or patents is therefore mandatory.
Experience in the preparation and management of research proposals (EU, US, national) and a few years of postdoc experience, either in academia or industrial lab, will also be duly considered. The winning candidate will also contribute to setting up new (funding) project proposals and will participate in funding activities.
He/she is expected to publish his/her research results in leading international journals and conferences, supervise PhD students and collaborate with other scientists, also with different expertise.
Salary will be commensurate to qualification and experience and in line with international standards.
Further details and informal enquires can be made by email to email@example.com quoting PAVIS- BC 73570 – 73571 as reference number.
Please send your completed application forms along with a curriculum listing all publications (possibly including a pdf of your most representative publications), a research statement describing your previous research experience and outlining its relevance to the above topics and names of 2 referees by email both to firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com , always quoting PAVIS-POST DOC BC 73570 – 73571 as reference.
This call will remain open and applications will be reviewed until the position is filled, but for full consideration please apply by February 15, 2017.
IIT was established in 2003 and successfully created alarge-scale infrastructure in Genova, a network of 10 state-of-the-art laboratories countrywide and recruited an international staff of about 1100 people from more than 50 countries. IIT’s research endeavour focuses on high-tech and innovation, representing the forefront of technology with possible applications from medicine to industry, computer science, robotics, life sciences and nano-biotechnologies.
In order to comply with the Italian law (art. 23 of Privacy Law of the Italian Legislative Decree n. 196/03), the candidate is kindly asked to give his/her consent to allow IIT to process his/her personal data. We inform you that the information you provide will be solely used for the purpose of assessing your professional profile to meet the requirements of Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia. Your data will be processed by Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, with its headquarters in Genoa, Via Morego 30, acting as the Data Holder, using computer and paper-based means, observing the rules on the protection of personal data, including those relating to the security of data. Please also note that, pursuant to art.7 of Legislative Decree 196/2003, you may exercise your rights at any time as a party concerned by contacting the Data Manager. Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia is an Equal Opportunity Employer that actively seeks diversity in the workforce
[visionlist] Alert: Deadline for submission to CRV 2017 has been extended to Sunday Feb 12, 11:59PM PSTPosted: January 31, 2017
The submission deadline for CRV 2017 has been extended to Sunday, February 12th at 11:59 PM PST. We look forward to receiving your contributions.Please see below for more details on the conference, keynote and symposium speakers, or visit http://ift.tt/2koZYn7 you in Edmonton, AB in May!Steven WaslanderJames ElderCRV 2017 Program Co-Chairs
Call For Papers14th Conference on Computer and Robot Vision
CRV 2017Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
May 16-19, 2017
CRV 2017 invites original, high quality paper submissions on a broad range of topics in computer and robot vision. See website for a list of specific topics.
Submission deadline: February 12, 2017 11:59PM PST
Decisions: March 10, 2017
Camera-ready: April 3, 2017
Submissions must be 4-8 pages in length and must describe original research on a topic in computer and/or robot vision.
Accepted papers (both Oral and Poster) will be published by the Conference Publishing Services (CPS) and will be submitted for publication to IEEE Xplore. IEEE Xplore has published the CRV proceedings since 2004.
Peter Corke, Queensland University of Technology
Pietro Perona, California Institute of Technology
Gaurav Sukhatme, University of Southern California
CRV will feature 6 Symposia consisting of invited talks from 12 leading computer and robot vision researchers:
Ping Tan, Simon Fraser University
John Zelek, University of Waterloo
Frank Ferrie, McGill University
Denis Laurendeau, Laval University
Learning in Vision and Robotics
Kosta Derpanis, Ryerson University
Angela Schoellig, University of Toronto
Michael Brown, York University
Michael Langer, McGill University
Vision from Above and Below (Remote/Underwater Sensing)
David Clausi, University of Waterloo
Herb Yang, University of Alberta
Biologically Motivated Computer Vision and Multimedia
Anup Basu, University of Alberta
Neil Bruce, University of Manitoba
For more information, contact the CRV 2017 Co-Chairs:Steven Waslander, University of WaterlooJames Elder, York Universitycomputerrobotvision2017@gmail.com
The Conference on Computer and Robot Vision is sponsored by the Canadian Image Processing and Pattern Recognition Society (CIPPRS) and is jointly located with the Canadian AI and Graphics Interface conferences.
Computer and Robot Vision ConferenceUniversity of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta T6G 2R3
Update your Email Preferences or Unsubscribe
Postdoc positions are available both at Heriot-Watt Edinburgh and EPFL Lausanne on ‘Big Data Algorithms for Fourier Imaging’.
Outstanding researchers are very welcome to apply for these positions.
All info @ http://ift.tt/2koQc4u
*** Apologies for multiple postings, feel free to forward ***
Call for Papers
Apologies for cross-posting.
Web3D 2017 will be in Brisbane, Australia on 5-7 June, 2017.
We would like to remind you that paper, tutorial, workshop, and poster submission deadline is approaching.
Web3D Communications Co-Chair
to my Blog Post from 27 Feb 2014, originally prompted by a battle with a Sham
Open-Access ‘Journal’ in 2013:
is an uncanny irony (perhaps eerie
familiarity would be appropriate in this instance) in the disappearance of
Jeffrey Beall’s Scholarly Open Access blog site. We have all begun to descend
rapidly down a shear slope that has been recently revealed in stark relief by
the official arrival of legitimization of “fake news” in our society. Somehow,
seemingly overnight, a massive wedge has been successfully driven between the intellectual domains governed by
empirical-based epistemology and her Evil twin
– “alternative ‘facts’ “. Our
experience within the naïve and relatively civil society of Science perhaps
served as a kind of palliative, a numbing fog leaving us ‘Science-Lambs’ particularly
vulnerable to the ‘Alt-Fact (Sham-Journal) Wolves’.
irony in the timing of the evaporation of Jeffrey Beall’s website is especially
poignant when faced with a new, frightening cultural force – i.e., the brazen
and cynical assault on knowledge, on the very mechanisms we have come to rely
on that generate and define knowledge. We are witnessing an insidious ascent of viral
malignant memes into popular culture, indeed into the political and
news-producing machinery, that seeks to pull an Orwellian card-trick right
under our dumb-struck noses, and prove to us that all claims are created equal,
that beliefs, regardless of basis, and empirical-based facts have the same
genotype. The driving forces behind the proliferation of Sham ‘Open-Access’ Journals
and the proliferation of the various forms of “Fake News” in society are
admittedly not identical. But their inevitable
corrosive effects on Science and the culture at large are decidedly comparable.
When the leader of the ‘free world’ can state, with impunity, that legitimate,
well-studied concerns about the pace and causes of climate change (global warming
in particular) are a hoax propagated by China, we all need to be alarmed. And
we need to be alarmed at the disappearance of Jeffrey Beall’s clarion (and
apparently lone) voice against the assault within our particular intellectual
borders, the world of scientific publication.
Here is what I wrote 4 years ago on this topic, before our parochial
concern was joined by analogous concerns in the wider society of public
Colleagues and Friends,
is a growing trend in our field (and probably others) that threatens to become
epidemic, a development that poses a serious threat to the spirit and practice
of scholarly, scientific research. That
is, the proliferation of sham/predatory “open-access” journals. Some of you may have already fallen prey to
the tactics of one of these many new “journals”.
obtain a glimpse of the potential scope
to this problem, it is worth one’s while to take a close look at a website is called “Scholarly Open Access (http://scholarlyoa.com/)”.
of this site has taken it upon himself to compile a ton of information about known
or suspected sham journals. The site offers sensible recommendations as to what
“red flags” to look out for, and documents some “case studies” and provides a
long list of so-called open-access journals that are either predatory/sham
businesses, or are suspected of being so based on criteria that are spelled out
explicitly on the website. Any journal listed a suspect has right of appeal and
if a mistake is confirmed, the name of that journal will be deleted from the
site’s “no-fly” list.
clearly in any scientists best interest to avoid publishing (or trying to publish)
in one of these journals, but it may be especially important for young
scientists to avoid these journals since their career (and reputation) is just
beginning to be established.
is my take on the big picture:
Science is vulnerable
to any nefarious tinkering that pollutes the essential fertilizer of real
progress – its adherence to what Jacob Bronowski called the “Habit of
Truth”. Misuse of our lightning-fast media for dissemination of
scientific ideas and findings has the potential to do great harm to us all. The
moment we doubt the honesty of a scientist, we doubt the veracity and value of his/her
work. What about when we come to doubt the honesty of a journal? Then all
publications in that journal come to be doubted, deserved or not. And so
on. It is a cancer that can metastasize as rapidly as the click of a
mouse button nowadays.
What to do?
Blogs like http://scholarlyoa.com/ are one defense, and we ought to applaud and support it. Awakening
the vast majority of an honest scientific community (the “Lambs”) to
the existence of, and tactics of the Sham-Journal-“Wolves” is
certainly a key ingredient in an effective response to this kind of thing.
Maybe we also need to organize a conference(s) of some sort to seek to
establish a journal peer-review
process, or at least discuss the merits and feasibility of some sort of minimal
accreditation procedure that an “open-access” journal must receive to be
included in the sphere of serious, trustworthy science. Some of the criteria
Scholarly Open Access uses to identify potentially illegitimate journals
represent a useful, intelligent outline for development of more formal
accreditation or evaluative/rating scheme.
My gut response is not
comfortable with this prospect, even though this may be where we are being
pushed. For centuries, scientific progress has done astoundingly well
using the honor system, and self-evaluative mechanisms. There is no
“law” or official rule that forces a scientist to be honest in his/her
observations or reporting of them, or to do a thorough literature search about
the topics relevant to his/her work. Yet breach of these principles can bring
serious censure to scientists who fail to adhere to our mutually-agreed-upon
Ethical standards. Yet, even when there is no law, we do these things, we try
to adhere to and maintain the “Habit of Truth” – some are more assiduous and
rigorous in this than others. And, to be sure, all of us are increasingly challenged
by the sheer volume and expansion of scientific literature that needs to be
absorbed and cited. But we do this without a “law” to make us; it
is simply what we know is required to maintain the credibility of our work and
to generate true knowledge that is evidence-based and that will stand the test
Jacob Bronowski said
in his 1956 book, Science & Human Values ():
“We OUGHT to act
in such a way that what IS true can be verified to be so.”
He goes on to say:
progress of science, theoretical and practical, has depended on the existence
of a fellowship of science which is free, uninhibited [he meant free and
uninhibited to speak truth to anyone, authority included!], and communicative.
It is not an upstart society, for it derives its traditions, both of
scholarship and of service, from roots which reach through the Renaissance into
the monastic communities and the first universities. The men and woman who
practise the sciences make a company of scholars which has been more lasting
than any modern state, yet which has changed and evolved as no Church has….In
an obvious sense, theirs is the power of virtue. By the worldly standards of
public life, all scholars in their work are of course oddly virtuous.
They do not make wild claims, they do not cheat, they do
not try to persuade at any cost, they appeal neither to prejudice nor to
authority, they are often frank about their ignorance, their disputes are
fairly decorous, they do not confuse what is being argued with race, politics,
sex or age, they listen patiently to the young and to the old who both know
everything…These are the general virtues of scholarship, and they are
peculiarly the virtues of science.”
image of our profession is one we all carry, silently, as a guiding philosophy
that needs no explanation. Now in our internet age, I fear that we scientists
(and likely members of many other professions!) may need to start circling the
wagons. When it so easy to cheat on a huge scale, we may all need to begin to
adopt an unfortunate vigilance and to seek reliable methods to protect and
preserve the integrity of science. Progress will cease if integrity is
To be clear, I am not a
fan of “policing” our activities. But what can we do about this
kind of misuse of an increasingly open-access information world that will not
poison the very pearl that we nurture, a pearl that is now growing faster than
ever – i.e., the true democratization of access to, and generation of
knowledge/information? This is a real conundrum: How do we protect
our science and the mechanisms of its dissemination without infecting them with
another unintended virus.
At the very least, we
need to start a broader discussion about this issue and try to formulate,
democratically, a sensible policy response to this threat.
Russell D. Hamer, PhD.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:55 AM, John Pezaris wrote:
I’d prefer to avoid personal attacks on a scientific mailing list.
Beall’s list was an important resource. I’m wondering if some
professional society might take up the mantle and continue it,
somehow. The problem is that it would seem any society sufficiently
large enough to devote the necessary resources (and fight any
potential legal consequences) would have its own publication and
therefore an inherent conflict of interest. Does anyone have ideas on
how to avoid that scenario?
On 1/26/17, Sebastiaan Mathot
> Let’s not glorify Jeffrey Beall too much (or at all). His list was
> useful, but it was never healthy that such an important resource was
> curated by a single nutcase. To illustrate, let me quote from one his
> /”The open-access movement is really about anti-corporatism. OA
> advocates want to make collective everything and eliminate private
> business, except for small businesses owned by the disadvantaged. They
> don’t like the idea of profit, even though many have a large portfolio
> of mutual funds in their retirement accounts that invest in for-profit
> And so on, and so on. Is that the kind of guy we want to depend on? No
> And yes, he actually wrote this! In an obscure open-access journal,
> – http://ift.tt/2kkwneO.
> Michael Eisen wrote an interesting blog about this:
> – http://ift.tt/GIotRp
> On 26/01/2017 14:30, John Neuhoff wrote:
>> Losing Beall’s list is really unfortunate, particularly for new
>> scholars. There is some talks that Cabell’s International is
>> developing a similar list based, in part, on Beall’s list. See:
>> There is some speculation that these two events are related (though
>> this has been denied by Cabell’s). See also the efforts of Dr. Eugene
>> Noolah, a fictional character that has gotten himself appointed to the
>> editorial boards of several predatory journals.
>> John G. Neuhoff
>> Department of Psychology
>> The College of Wooster
Dear Vision Researchers,
We have created a dataset dedicated to the relatively new computer vision problem of detection and tracking of maritime vehicles using cameras mounted on static or dynamic platforms. Take a look at the dataset at
Ground truth for horizon, objects (static and dynamic), and multiple-object-tracks are provided for visible and infrared maritime videos.
Also, see the survey related to this topic Preprint at – http://ift.tt/2kHDjQK
Dilip Prasad, Ph.D
Nanyang Technological University
Are you an undergraduate interested in learning more about cognitive and brain
sciences? If so, the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at
the University of Delaware is holding its 1st Annual Summer Workshop
in Cognitive and Brain Sciences. This program, from June 5th-16th,
2017, is an intensive workshop for undergraduates who are interested in
cognitive research. Participants will receive immersive training in
cognitive and brain sciences, including both formal coursework, interactive
teaching, and hands-on experience with functional neuroimaging, non-invasive brain
stimulation, cognitive neuropsychological research, and more.
Thanks to funding from the National Science Foundation,
participant expenses involving travel, tuition, room and board will be covered
for the entire two-week program. Furthermore, selected workshop attendees
will have the opportunity to engage in cognitive neuroscience research over the
entire summer at the University of Delaware. Those students will be
provided with a stipend, in addition to workshop expenses.
We encourage all undergraduates with a strong interest in
the cognitive and brain sciences to apply. We also encourage
students from underrepresented backgrounds to apply. Applications are due March
1st. For more information, please go to https:/www.psych.udel.edu/brainworkshop. If you have any questions, please contact the workshop organizers (Drs. Jared
Medina & Anna Papafragou) at firstname.lastname@example.org.