This paper proposes a learning strategy that extracts object-part concepts from a pre-trained convolutional neural network (CNN), in an attempt to 1) explore explicit semantics hidden in CNN units and 2) gradually grow a semantically interpretable graphical model on the pre-trained CNN for hierarchical object understanding. Given part annotations on very few (e.g., 3-12) objects, our method mines certain latent patterns from the pre-trained CNN and associates them with different semantic parts. We use a four-layer And-Or graph to organize the mined latent patterns, so as to clarify their internal semantic hierarchy. Our method is guided by a small number of part annotations, and it achieves superior performance (about 13 -107 improvement) in part center prediction on the PASCAL VOC and ImageNet datasets.
Transferring hidden patterns in the CNN to other tasks is important for neural networks. Typical research includes end-to-end fine-tuning and transferring CNN knowledge between different categories @cite_3 @cite_29 and or datasets @cite_17 . In contrast, we believe that a good explanation and transparent representation of part knowledge will creates a new possibility of transferring part knowledge. As in @cite_20 @cite_23 , the AOG is suitable to represent the semantic hierarchy, which enables semantic-level interactions between human and neural networks.
@cite_29 @cite_3 @cite_23 @cite_20 @cite_17
2284929451 2949667497 1999160507 347936517
Given a convolutional neural network (CNN) that is pre-trained for object classification, this paper proposes to use active question-answering to semanticize neural patterns in conv-layers of the CNN and mine part concepts. For each part concept, we mine neural patterns in the pre-trained CNN, which are related to the target part, and use these patterns to construct an And-Or graph (AOG) to represent a four-layer semantic hierarchy of the part. As an interpretable model, the AOG associates different CNN units with different explicit object parts. We use an active human-computer communication to incrementally grow such an AOG on the pre-trained CNN as follows. We allow the computer to actively identify objects, whose neural patterns cannot be explained by the current AOG. Then, the computer asks human about the unexplained objects, and uses the answers to automatically discover certain CNN patterns corresponding to the missing knowledge. We incrementally grow the AOG to encode new knowledge discovered during the active-learning process. In experiments, our method exhibits high learning efficiency. Our method uses about 1 6&#x2013;1 3 of the part annotations for training, but achieves similar or better part-localization performance than fast-RCNN methods. Previous research indicates that during the past 20 years, the highest-quality work has been published in an increasingly diverse and larger group of journals. In this article, we examine whether this diversification has also affected the handful of elite journals that are traditionally considered to be the best. We examine citation patterns during the past 40 years of seven long-standing traditionally elite journals and six journals that have been increasing in importance during the past 20 years. To be among the top 5 or 1 cited papers, papers now need about twice as many citations as they did 40 years ago. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, elite journals have been publishing a decreasing proportion of these top-cited papers. This also applies to the two journals that are typically considered as the top venues and often used as bibliometric indicators of "excellence": Science and Nature. On the other hand, several new and established journals are publishing an increasing proportion of the most-cited papers. These changes bring new challenges and opportunities for all parties. Journals can enact policies to increase or maintain their relative position in the journal hierarchy. Researchers now have the option to publish in more diverse venues knowing that their work can still reach the same audiences. Finally, evaluators and administrators need to know that although there will always be a certain prestige associated with publishing in "elite" journals, journal hierarchies are in constant flux. In recent years scholars have built maps of science by connecting the academic fields that cite each other, are cited together, or that cite a similar literature. But since scholars cannot always publish in the fields they cite, or that cite them, these science maps are only rough proxies for the potential of a scholar, organization, or country, to enter a new academic field. Here we use a large dataset of scholarly publications disambiguated at the individual level to create a map of science-or research space-where links connect pairs of fields based on the probability that an individual has published in both of them. We find that the research space is a significantly more accurate predictor of the fields that individuals and organizations will enter in the future than citation based science maps. At the country level, however, the research space and citations based science maps are equally accurate. These findings show that data on career trajectories-the set of fields that individuals have previously published in-provide more accurate predictors of future research output for more focalized units-such as individuals or organizations-than citation based science maps. 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 ...