We propose a method for guiding a photographer to rotate her his smartphone camera to obtain an image that overlaps with another image of the same scene. The other image is taken by another photographer from a different viewpoint. Our method is applicable even when the images do not have overlapping fields of view. Straightforward applications of our method include sharing attention to regions of interest for social purposes, or adding missing images to improve structure for motion results. Our solution uses additional images of the scene, which are often available since many people use their smartphone cameras regularly. These images may be available online from other photographers who are present at the scene. Our method avoids 3D scene reconstruction; it relies instead on a new representation that consists of the spatial orders of the scene points on two axes, x and y. This representation allows a sequence of points to be chosen efficiently and projected onto the photographers images, using epipolar point transfer. Overlaying these epipolar lines on the live preview of the camera produces a convenient interface to guide the user. The method was tested on challenging datasets of images and succeeded in guiding a photographer from one view to a non-overlapping destination view.
To allow for geometric and spatial reasoning without direct 3D reconstruction, we use the spatial orderings of the scene points, obtained by rank aggregation. Rank aggregation is the problem of finding a full ranking that agrees with multiple (full or partial) rankings, i.e., a consensus of rankings. It was traditionally studied in the context of social choice and voting theory @cite_27 , but was used also for biological sequence alignment @cite_19 and web page ranking @cite_7 . Recently, it was used to temporally order a collection of images of a dynamic scene @cite_14 @cite_15 . The common rank aggregation problem is known to be NP hard @cite_7 . In our method, we use the Markov chain approximation for rank aggregation, which was proven to be quite effective if the power iteration method is used @cite_7 .
@cite_14 @cite_7 @cite_19 @cite_27 @cite_15
2051834357 2151990594 2000851114 2152136819
Purpose  The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations.Design methodology approach  ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets  a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a selfcitation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation  using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database.Findings  ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited ... This paper reports a systematic review of empirical studies concerning the effectiveness of elicitation techniques, and the subsequent aggregation of empirical evidence gathered from those studies. The most significant results of the aggregation process are as follows: (1) Interviews, preferentially structured, appear to be one of the most effective elicitation techniques; (2) Many techniques often cited in the literature, like card sorting, ranking or thinking aloud, tend to be less effective than interviews; (3) Analyst experience does not appear to be a relevant factor; and (4) The studies conducted have not found the use of intermediate representations during elicitation to have significant positive effects. It should be noted that, as a general rule, the studies from which these results were aggregated have not been replicated, and therefore the above claims cannot be said to be absolutely certain. However, they can be used by researchers as pieces of knowledge to be further investigated and by practitioners in development projects, always taking into account that they are preliminary findings. Scholars are increasingly citing electronic web references which are not preserved in libraries or full text archives. WebCite is a new standard for citing web references. To webcite a document involves archiving the cited Web page through www.webcitation.org and citing the WebCite permalink instead of (or in addition to) the unstable live Web page. This journal has amended its instructions for authors accordingly, asking authors to archive cited Web pages before submitting a manuscript. Almost 200 other journals are already using the system. We discuss the rationale for WebCite, its technology, and how scholars, editors, and publishers can benefit from the service. Citing scholars initiate an archiving process of all cited Web references, ideally before they submit a manuscript. Authors of online documents and websites which are expected to be cited by others can ensure that their work is permanently available by creating an archived copy using WebCite and providing the citation information including the WebCite link on their Web document(s). Editors should ask their authors to cache all cited Web addresses (Uniform Resource Locators, or URLs) prospectively before submitting their manuscripts to their journal. Editors and publishers should also instruct their copyeditors to cache cited Web material if the author has not done so already. Finally, WebCite can process publisher submitted citing articles (submitted for example as eXtensible Markup Language [XML] documents) to automatically archive all cited Web pages shortly before or on publication. Finally, WebCite can act as a focussed crawler, caching retrospectively references of already published articles. Copyright issues The sheer volume of scholarly publications available online significantly challenges how scholars retrieve the new information available and locate the candidate reference papers. While classical text retrieval and pseudo relevance feedback (PRF) algorithms can assist scholars in accessing needed publications, in this study, we propose an innovative publication ranking method with PRF by leveraging a number of meta-paths on the heterogeneous bibliographic graph. Different meta-paths on the graph address different ranking hypotheses, whereas the pseudo-relevant papers (from the retrieval results) are used as the seed nodes on the graph. Meanwhile, unlike prior studies, we propose "restricted meta-path" facilitated by a new context-rich heterogeneous network extracted from full-text publication content along with citation context. By using learning-to-rank, we integrate 18 different meta-path-based ranking features to derive the final ranking scores for candidate cited papers. Experimental results with ACM full-text corpus show that meta-path-based ranking with PRF on the new graph significantly (p We consider the problem of finding a ranking of a set of elements that is "closest to" a given set of input rankings of the elements; more precisely, we want to find a permutation that minimizes the Kendall-tau distance to the input rankings, where the Kendall-tau distance is defined as the sum over all input rankings of the number of pairs of elements that are in a different order in the input ranking than in the output ranking. If the input rankings are permutations, this problem is known as the Kemeny rank aggregation problem. This problem arises for example in building meta-search engines for Web search, aggregating viewers' rankings of movies, or giving recommendations to a user based on several different criteria, where we can think of having one ranking of the alternatives for each criterion. Many of the approximation algorithms and heuristics that have been proposed in the literature are either positional, comparison sort or local search algorithms. The rank aggregation problem is a special case of the (weighted) feedback arc set problem, but in the feedback arc set problem we use only information about the preferred relative ordering of pairs of elements to find a ranking of the elements, whereas in the case of the rank aggregation problem, we have additional information in the form of the complete input rankings. The positional methods are the only algorithms that use this additional information. Since the rank aggregation problem is NP-hard, none of these algorithms is guaranteed to find the optimal solution, and different algorithms will provide different solutions. We give theoretical and practical evidence that a combination of these different approaches gives algorithms