Unlike machines, humans learn through rapid, Abstract model-building. The role of a teacher is not simply to hammer home right or wrong answers, but rather to provide intuitive comments, comparisons, and explanations to a pupil. This is what the Learning Under Privileged Information (LUPI) paradigm endeavors to model by utilizing extra knowledge only available during training. We propose a new LUPI algorithm specifically designed for Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs). We propose to use a heteroscedastic dropout (i.e. dropout with a varying variance) and make the variance of the dropout a function of privileged information. Intuitively, this corresponds to using the privileged information to control the uncertainty of the model output. We perform experiments using CNNs and RNNs for the tasks of image classification and machine translation. Our method significantly increases the sample efficiency during learning, resulting in higher accuracy with a large margin when the number of training examples is limited. We also theoretically justify the gains in sample efficiency by providing a generalization error bound decreasing with O(1 n), where n is the number of training examples, in an oracle case.
Although we use IB @cite_6 , Gaussian dropout @cite_36 and the re-parametrization trick @cite_4 , we are the first to our knowledge to apply any of these methods to the LUPI problem.
@cite_36 @cite_4 @cite_6
2095705004 2964184826
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 self‐citation 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 ... Abstract Documents in computer-readable form can be used to provide information about other documents, i.e. those they cite. To do this efficiently requires procedures for computer recognition of citing statements. This is not easy, especially for multi-sentence citing statements. Computer recognition procedures have been developed which are accurate to the following extent: 73 of the words in statements selected by computer procedures as being citing statements are words which are correctly attributable to the corresponding documents. The retrieval effectiveness of computer-recognized citing statements was tested in the following way. First, for eight retrieval requests in inorganiic chemistry, average recall by search of Chemical Abstracts Service indexing and Chemical Abstracts abstract text words was found to be 50 . Words from citing statements referring to the papers to be retrieved were then added to the index terms and abstract words as additional access points, and searching was repeated. Average recall increased to 70 . Only words from citing statements published within a year of the cited papers were used. The retrieval effect of citing statement words alone (published within a year) without index or abstract terms was the following: average recall was 40 . When just the words of the titles of the cited papers were added to those citing statement words, average recall increased to 50 . A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results.