In many machine learning applications, it is necessary to meaningfully aggregate, through alignment, different but related datasets. Optimal transport (OT)-based approaches pose alignment as a divergence minimization problem: the aim is to transform a source dataset to match a target dataset using the Wasserstein distance as a divergence measure. We introduce a hierarchical formulation of OT which leverages clustered structure in data to improve alignment in noisy, ambiguous, or multimodal settings. To solve this numerically, we propose a distributed ADMM algorithm that also exploits the Sinkhorn distance, thus it has an efficient computational complexity that scales quadratically with the size of the largest cluster. When the transformation between two datasets is unitary, we provide performance guarantees that describe when and how well aligned cluster correspondences can be recovered with our formulation, as well as provide worst-case dataset geometry for such a strategy. We apply this method to synthetic datasets that model data as mixtures of low-rank Gaussians and study the impact that different geometric properties of the data have on alignment. Next, we applied our approach to a neural decoding application where the goal is to predict movement directions and instantaneous velocities from populations of neurons in the macaque primary motor cortex. Our results demonstrate that when clustered structure exists in datasets, and is consistent across trials or time points, a hierarchical alignment strategy that leverages such structure can provide significant improvements in cross-domain alignment.
Various probability divergences have been proposed in the literature, such as Euclidean least-squares (when data ordering is known) @cite_33 @cite_24 @cite_17 , Kullbeck-Liebler (KL) @cite_16 , maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) @cite_40 @cite_20 @cite_14 @cite_7 , and the Wasserstein distance @cite_45 , where trade-offs are often statistical (e.g., consistency, sample complexity) versus computational. Alignment problems are ill-posed since the space of @math is large, so structure is often necessary to constrain @math based on geometric assumptions. Compact manifolds like the Grassmann or Stiefel @cite_15 @cite_18 are primary choices when little information is present, as they preserve isometry. Non-isometric transformations, though richer, demand much more structure (e.g., manifold or graph structure) @cite_38 @cite_31 @cite_19 @cite_21 @cite_45 .
@cite_38 @cite_18 @cite_14 @cite_31 @cite_33 @cite_7 @cite_21 @cite_24 @cite_19 @cite_40 @cite_45 @cite_15 @cite_16 @cite_20 @cite_17
2123261262 2124961556 2115403315 2128053425 2103851188
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. 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 are addressed by honouring respective Internet standards (robot exclusion files, no-cache and no-archive tags). Long-term preservation is ensured by agreements with libraries and digital preservation organizations. The resulting WebCite Index may also have applications for research assessment exercises, being able to measure the impact of Web services and published Web documents through access and Web citation metrics. @PARASPLIT [J Med Internet Res 2005;7(5):e60]