Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016259817 = product of:
  0.032519635 = sum of:
    0.032519635 = product of:
      0.06503927 = sum of:
        0.06503927 = weight(_text_:n in 3886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06503927 = score(doc=3886,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.33346266 = fieldWeight in 3886, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3886)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper investigates the acceleration of t-SNE-an embedding technique that is commonly used for the visualization of high-dimensional data in scatter plots-using two tree-based algorithms. In particular, the paper develops variants of the Barnes-Hut algorithm and of the dual-tree algorithm that approximate the gradient used for learning t-SNE embeddings in O(N*logN). Our experiments show that the resulting algorithms substantially accelerate t-SNE, and that they make it possible to learn embeddings of data sets with millions of objects. Somewhat counterintuitively, the Barnes-Hut variant of t-SNE appears to outperform the dual-tree variant.

0.013936987 = product of:
  0.027873974 = sum of:
    0.027873974 = product of:
      0.05574795 = sum of:
        0.05574795 = weight(_text_:n in 3867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05574795 = score(doc=3867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 3867, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An event is a specific occurrence involving participants, which is a typed, n-ary association of entities or other events, each identified as a participant in a specific semantic role in the event (Pyysalo et al. 2012; Linguistic Data Consortium 2005). Event types may vary across domains. Representing relationships between events can facilitate the understanding of knowledge in complex systems (such as economic systems, human body, social systems). In the simplest form, an event can be represented as Entity A <Relation> Entity B. This paper evaluates several knowledge organization and visualization models and tools, such as concept maps (Cmap), topic maps (Ontopia), network analysis models (Gephi), and ontology (Protégé), then proposes an event relationship model that aims to integrate the strengths of these models, and can represent complex knowledge expressed in events and their relationships.

0.011614156 = product of:
  0.023228312 = sum of:
    0.023228312 = product of:
      0.046456624 = sum of:
        0.046456624 = weight(_text_:n in 3366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046456624 = score(doc=3366,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 3366, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3366)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0091932835 = product of:
  0.018386567 = sum of:
    0.018386567 = product of:
      0.036773134 = sum of:
        0.036773134 = weight(_text_:22 in 1289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036773134 = score(doc=1289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.0069684936 = product of:
  0.013936987 = sum of:
    0.013936987 = product of:
      0.027873974 = sum of:
        0.027873974 = weight(_text_:n in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027873974 = score(doc=1197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19504215 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.14291257 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0045966418 = product of:
  0.0091932835 = sum of:
    0.0091932835 = product of:
      0.018386567 = sum of:
        0.018386567 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018386567 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15840882 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045236014 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.