In this task, you are given a part of an article. Your task is to generate headline (title) for this text. Preferred headlines are under fifteen words.

[EX Q]: The comparison of heterogeneous samples extensively exists in many applications, especially in the task of image classification. In this paper, we propose a simple but effective coupled neural network, called Deeply Coupled Autoencoder Networks (DCAN), which seeks to build two deep neural networks, coupled with each other in every corresponding layers. In DCAN, each deep structure is developed via stacking multiple discriminative coupled auto-encoders, a denoising auto-encoder trained with maximum margin criterion consisting of intra-class compactness and inter-class penalty. This single layer component makes our model simultaneously preserve the local consistency and enhance its discriminative capability. With increasing number of layers, the coupled networks can gradually narrow the gap between the two views. Extensive experiments on cross-view image classification tasks demonstrate the superiority of our method over state-of-the-art methods.
[EX A]: Deeply Coupled Auto-encoder Networks for Cross-view Classification

[EX Q]: The interest in the combination of probability with logics for modeling the world has rapidly increased in the last few years. One of the most effective approaches is the Distribution Semantics which was adopted by many logic programming languages and in Descripion Logics. In this paper, we illustrate the work we have done in this research field by presenting a probabilistic semantics for description logics and reasoning and learning algorithms. In particular, we present in detail the system TRILL , which computes the probability of queries w.r.t. probabilistic knowledge bases, which has been implemented in Prolog. Note: An extended abstract / full version of a paper accepted to be presented at the Doctoral Consortium of the 30th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2014), July 19-22, Vienna, Austria
[EX A]: Reasoning with Probabilistic Logics

[EX Q]: Words can be represented by composing the representations of subword units such as word segments, characters, and/or character n-grams. While such representations are effective and may capture the morphological regularities of words, they have not been systematically compared, and it is not understood how they interact with different morphological typologies. On a language modeling task, we present experiments that systematically vary (1) the basic unit of representation, (2) the composition of these representations, and (3) the morphological typology of the language modeled. Our results largely confirm previous findings that character representations are effective across many languages, though we find that a previously unstudied combination of character trigram representations composed with bi-LSTMs outperforms most other settings. However, we also find room for improvement: character models do not match the predictive accuracy of a model with access to explicit morphological analyses.
[EX A]:
From Characters to Words to in Between: Do We Capture Morphology?