In this paper, we propose a new CNN model DiCENet, that is built using: (1) dimension-wise convolutions and (2) efficient channel fusion. The introduced blocks maximize the use of information in the input tensor by learning representations across all dimensions while simultaneously reducing the complexity of the network and achieving high accuracy. Our model shows significant improvements over state-of-the-art models across various visual recognition tasks, including image classification, object detection, and semantic segmentation. Our model delivers either the same or better performance than existing models with fewer FLOPs, including task-specific models. Notably, DiCENet delivers competitive performance to neural architecture search-based methods at fewer FLOPs (70-100 MFLOPs). On the MS-COCO object detection, DiCENet is 4.5 more accurate and has 5.6 times fewer FLOPs than YOLOv2. On the PASCAL VOC 2012 semantic segmentation dataset, DiCENet is 4.3 more accurate and has 3.2 times fewer FLOPs than a recent efficient semantic segmentation network, ESPNet. Our source code is available at this https URL
Recently, neural search methods, including reinforcement learning and genetic algorithms, have been proposed to automatically construct network architectures @cite_53 @cite_38 @cite_16 @cite_6 @cite_24 @cite_29 . These methods search over a huge network space (e.g. MNASNet @cite_24 searches over 8K different design choices) using a dictionary of pre-defined search space parameters, including different types of convolutional layers and kernel sizes, to identify a network structure, usually non-homogeneous, that satisfies optimization constraints, such as inference time. Recent search-based methods @cite_24 @cite_14 @cite_58 use MobileNetv2 @cite_36 as a basic search block for automatic network design. Since the proposed unit delivers better performance than MobileNetv2 (see Section ), we believe that neural architecture search with our proposed unit would enable finding a better network design.
@cite_38 @cite_14 @cite_36 @cite_53 @cite_29 @cite_58 @cite_6 @cite_24 @cite_16
2964259004 2963163009 2553303224 2963821229 2904699287 2964081807 2886953980 2594529350
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. 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 ... 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.