Residual connections significantly boost the performance of deep neural networks. However, there are few theoretical results that address the influence of residuals on the hypothesis complexity and the generalization ability of deep neural networks. This paper studies the influence of residual connections on the hypothesis complexity of the neural network in terms of the covering number of its hypothesis space. We prove that the upper bound of the covering number is the same as chain-like neural networks, if the total numbers of the weight matrices and nonlinearities are fixed, no matter whether they are in the residuals or not. This result demonstrates that residual connections may not increase the hypothesis complexity of the neural network compared with the chain-like counterpart. Based on the upper bound of the covering number, we then obtain an @math margin-based multi-class generalization bound for ResNet, as an exemplary case of any deep neural network with residual connections. Generalization guarantees for similar state-of-the-art neural network architectures, such as DenseNet and ResNeXt, are straight-forward. From our generalization bound, a practical implementation is summarized: to approach a good generalization ability, we need to use regularization terms to control the magnitude of the norms of weight matrices not to increase too much, which justifies the standard technique of weight decay.
Two recent works respectively by @cite_3 and @cite_11 provide upper bounds for the generalization error of chain-like deep neural networks. Specifically, @cite_3 proposes an @math spectral-normalized margin-based generalization bound by upper bounding the Rademacher complexity covering number of the hypothesis space through the divide-and-conquer strategy. Meanwhile, @cite_11 obtains a similar result under the PAC-bayesian framework. Our work is partially motivated by the analysis in @cite_3 .
@cite_3 @cite_11
2963664410 2963285844
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. 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 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. Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.