The deep two-stream architecture exhibited excellent performance on video based action recognition. The most computationally expensive step in this approach comes from the calculation of optical flow which prevents it to be real-time. This paper accelerates this architecture by replacing optical flow with motion vector which can be obtained directly from compressed videos without extra calculation. However, motion vector lacks fine structures, and contains noisy and inaccurate motion patterns, leading to the evident degradation of recognition performance. Our key insight for relieving this problem is that optical flow and motion vector are inherent correlated. Transferring the knowledge learned with optical flow CNN to motion vector CNN can significantly boost the performance of the latter. Specifically, we introduce three strategies for this, initialization transfer, supervision transfer and their combination. Experimental results show that our method achieves comparable recognition performance to the state-of-the-art, while our method can process 390.7 frames per second, which is 27 times faster than the original two-stream method.
Action recognition has been widely studied in recent years. Early approaches extracted local spatio-time descriptors from input video and encoded these descriptors with Bag of Visual Words or its variants for classification. Laptev @cite_23 proposed spatio-time interest points by extending Harris corner into spatio-time dimension. Wang et al. @cite_29 further exploited trajectorires to model temporal relationship of continuous frames. Furthermore, Kviatkovsky et al. @cite_31 proposed a covariance descriptor to realize online action recognition. Popular local descriptors for video representation include HOG @cite_21 , HOF @cite_23 , MBH @cite_12 and TBC @cite_15 . And feature encoding techniques include hard quantization @cite_26 , VLAD @cite_11 , and Fisher Vector @cite_13 . @cite_7 @cite_0 @cite_16 exploited mid-level representations by proposing MoFAP and Motionlets.
@cite_26 @cite_7 @cite_15 @cite_29 @cite_21 @cite_0 @cite_23 @cite_31 @cite_16 @cite_13 @cite_12 @cite_11
2131846894 2175640409 1966306436 2105101328 2161969291 2163331914 2160253527 2012592962
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. In a document network such as a citation network of scientific documents, web-logs, etc., the content produced by authors exhibits their interest in certain topics. In addition some authors influence other authors' interests. In this work, we propose to model the influence of cited authors along with the interests of citing authors. Moreover, we hypothesize that apart from the citations present in documents, the context surrounding the citation mention provides extra topical information about the cited authors. However, associating terms in the context to the cited authors remains an open problem. We propose novel document generation schemes that incorporate the context while simultaneously modeling the interests of citing authors and influence of the cited authors. Our experiments show significant improvements over baseline models for various evaluation criteria such as link prediction between document and cited author, and quantitatively explaining unseen text. 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 ...