Directly learning features from the point cloud has become an active research direction in 3D understanding. Existing learning-based methods usually construct local regions from the point cloud and extract the corresponding features. However, most of these processes do not adequately take the spatial distribution of the point cloud into account, limiting the ability to perceive fine-grained patterns. We design a novel Local Spatial Aware (LSA) layer, which can learn to generate Spatial Distribution Weights (SDWs) hierarchically based on the spatial relationship in local region for spatial independent operations, to establish the relationship between these operations and spatial distribution, thus capturing the local geometric structure sensitively.We further propose the LSANet, which is based on LSA layer, aggregating the spatial information with associated features in each layer of the network better in network design.The experiments show that our LSANet can achieve on par or better performance than the state-of-the-art methods when evaluating on the challenging benchmark datasets. For example, our LSANet can achieve 93.2 accuracy on ModelNet40 dataset using only 1024 points, significantly higher than other methods under the same conditions. The source code is available at https: github.com LinZhuoChen LSANet.
There are some other concurrent point-based approaches to process point sets using deep learning, such as @cite_26 @cite_9 @cite_7 @cite_17 @cite_20 . Especially, SO-Net @cite_26 applies the self-organizing network on the point sets processing. RSNet @cite_9 uses Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) to process point sets. KCNet @cite_7 introduces the kernel correlation to combine the information of the neighborhood. And PointCNN @cite_17 learns a @math transform from the point sets to permute them in canonical order. @cite_20 , they project the point features into regular domains, so that the typical CNNs can be applied. The sparse data can also be represented as meshes @cite_10 or graphs @cite_12 @cite_2 , and there are some works that aim at learning feature from these representations. We refer the reader to @cite_22 for a more comprehensive survey.
@cite_26 @cite_22 @cite_7 @cite_9 @cite_2 @cite_10 @cite_12 @cite_20 @cite_17
2963719584 2963517242 2963333168 2788158258 2902302021
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 . 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] 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 ...