We address the challenging problem of generating facial attributes using a single image in an unconstrained pose. In contrast to prior works that largely consider generation on 2D near-frontal images, we propose a GAN-based framework to generate attributes directly on a dense 3D representation given by UV texture and position maps, resulting in photorealistic, geometrically-consistent and identity-preserving outputs. Starting from a self-occluded UV texture map obtained by applying an off-the-shelf 3D reconstruction method, we propose two novel components. First, a texture completion generative adversarial network (TC-GAN) completes the partial UV texture map. Second, a 3D attribute generation GAN (3DA-GAN) synthesizes the target attribute while obtaining an appearance consistent with 3D face geometry and preserving identity. Extensive experiments on CelebA, LFW and IJB-A show that our method achieves consistently better attribute generation accuracy than prior methods, a higher degree of qualitative photorealism and preserves face identity information.
Early works @cite_27 @cite_2 apply a 3D Morphable Model and search for dense point correspondence to complete the invisible face region. @cite_8 proposes a high fidelity pose and expression normalization approach based on 3DMM. @cite_40 formulate the frontalization as a low rank optimization problem. @cite_12 formulate the frontalization as a recurrent object rotation problem. @cite_29 propose a concatenate network structure to rotate faces with image-level reconstruction constraint. @cite_18 proposes using the identity perception feature to reconstruct normalized faces. Recently, GAN-based generative models @cite_31 @cite_30 @cite_15 @cite_25 @cite_41 @cite_3 have achieved high visual quality and preserve identity with large extent. Our method aligns in the GAN-based methods but works on 3D UV position and texture other than the 2D images.
@cite_30 @cite_18 @cite_8 @cite_15 @cite_41 @cite_29 @cite_3 @cite_27 @cite_40 @cite_2 @cite_31 @cite_25 @cite_12
2963100452 2610460387 1935685005 2964337551 2964339532 1955369839 2772024431 1916406603 2217448953 2607839780 2737047298 2799209711 2951475414
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. 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 ...