Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.107264124 = product of:
  0.16089618 = sum of:
    0.09677197 = weight(_text_:search in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09677197 = score(doc=2596,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.55382955 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
    0.06412421 = product of:
      0.12824842 = sum of:
        0.12824842 = weight(_text_:engines in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12824842 = score(doc=2596,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.50209284 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This series of meetings originated in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 1995. This inaugural meeting (part of an ASIDIC series) was transplanted to Bath in England (1996 and 1997) and then to Boston, Massachusetts (1998 and 1999). The Search Engines Meetings bring together commercial search engine developers, academics and corporate professionals to learn from each other. Infonortics, sponsor of meetings post-1995 with Ev Brenner, plans to continue the same success in Boston in 2000.

Content

Ramana Rao (Inxight, Palo Alto, CA) 7 ± 2 Insights on achieving Effective Information Access Session One: Updates and a twelve month perspective Danny Sullivan (Search Engine Watch, US / England) Portalization and other search trends Carol Tenopir (University of Tennessee) Search realities faced by end users and professional searchers Session Two: Today's search engines and beyond Daniel Hoogterp (Retrieval Technologies, McLean, VA) Effective presentation and utilization of search techniques Rick Kenny (Fulcrum Technologies, Ontario, Canada) Beyond document clustering: The knowledge impact statement Gary Stock (Ingenius, Kalamazoo, MI) Automated change monitoring Gary Culliss (Direct Hit, Wellesley Hills, MA) User popularity ranked search engines Byron Dom (IBM, CA) Automatically finding the best pages on the World Wide Web (CLEVER) Peter Tomassi (LookSmart, San Francisco, CA) Adding human intellect to search technology Session Three: Panel discussion: Human v automated categorization and editing Ev Brenner (New York, NY)- Chairman James Callan (University of Massachusetts, MA) Marc Krellenstein (Northern Light Technology, Cambridge, MA) Dan Miller (Ask Jeeves, Berkeley, CA) Session Four: Updates and a twelve month perspective Steve Arnold (AIT, Harrods Creek, KY) Review: The leading edge in search and retrieval software Ellen Voorhees (NIST, Gaithersburg, MD) TREC update Session Five: Search engines now and beyond Intelligent Agents John Snyder (Muscat, Cambridge, England) Practical issues behind intelligent agents Text summarization Therese Firmin, (Dept of Defense, Ft George G. Meade, MD) The TIPSTER/SUMMAC evaluation of automatic text summarization systems Cross language searching Elizabeth Liddy (TextWise, Syracuse, NY) A conceptual interlingua approach to cross-language retrieval. Video search and retrieval Armon Amir (IBM, Almaden, CA) CueVideo: Modular system for automatic indexing and browsing of video/audio Speech recognition Michael Witbrock (Lycos, Waltham, MA) Retrieval of spoken documents Visualization James A. Wise (Integral Visuals, Richland, WA) Information visualization in the new millennium: Emerging science or passing fashion? Text mining David Evans (Claritech, Pittsburgh, PA) Text mining - towards decision support

0.031318735 = product of:
  0.0469781 = sum of:
    0.029054843 = weight(_text_:search in 1875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029054843 = score(doc=1875,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.16628194 = fieldWeight in 1875, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1875)
    0.01792326 = product of:
      0.03584652 = sum of:
        0.03584652 = weight(_text_:engines in 1875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03584652 = score(doc=1875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.1403392 = fieldWeight in 1875, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

"Until now, so-called computer vision has largely been limited to recognizing individual objects. The new software, described on Monday by researchers at Google and at Stanford University, teaches itself to identify entire scenes: a group of young men playing Frisbee, for example, or a herd of elephants marching on a grassy plain. The software then writes a caption in English describing the picture. Compared with human observations, the researchers found, the computer-written descriptions are surprisingly accurate. The advances may make it possible to better catalog and search for the billions of images and hours of video available online, which are often poorly described and archived. At the moment, search engines like Google rely largely on written language accompanying an image or video to ascertain what it contains. "I consider the pixel data in images and video to be the dark matter of the Internet," said Fei-Fei Li, director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, who led the research with Andrej Karpathy, a graduate student. "We are now starting to illuminate it." Dr. Li and Mr. Karpathy published their research as a Stanford University technical report. The Google team published their paper on arXiv.org, an open source site hosted by Cornell University.
In living organisms, webs of neurons in the brain vastly outperform even the best computer-based networks in perception and pattern recognition. But by adopting some of the same architecture, computers are catching up, learning to identify patterns in speech and imagery with increasing accuracy. The advances are apparent to consumers who use Apple's Siri personal assistant, for example, or Google's image search. Both groups of researchers employed similar approaches, weaving together two types of neural networks, one focused on recognizing images and the other on human language. In both cases the researchers trained the software with relatively small sets of digital images that had been annotated with descriptive sentences by humans. After the software programs "learned" to see patterns in the pictures and description, the researchers turned them on previously unseen images. The programs were able to identify objects and actions with roughly double the accuracy of earlier efforts, although still nowhere near human perception capabilities. "I was amazed that even with the small amount of training data that we were able to do so well," said Oriol Vinyals, a Google computer scientist who wrote the paper with Alexander Toshev, Samy Bengio and Dumitru Erhan, members of the Google Brain project. "The field is just starting, and we will see a lot of increases."

0.0078282505 = product of:
  0.02348475 = sum of:
    0.02348475 = weight(_text_:search in 1874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02348475 = score(doc=1874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.1344041 = fieldWeight in 1874, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1874)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

"People can summarize a complex scene in a few words without thinking twice. It's much more difficult for computers. But we've just gotten a bit closer -- we've developed a machine-learning system that can automatically produce captions (like the three above) to accurately describe images the first time it sees them. This kind of system could eventually help visually impaired people understand pictures, provide alternate text for images in parts of the world where mobile connections are slow, and make it easier for everyone to search on Google for images. Recent research has greatly improved object detection, classification, and labeling. But accurately describing a complex scene requires a deeper representation of what's going on in the scene, capturing how the various objects relate to one another and translating it all into natural-sounding language. Many efforts to construct computer-generated natural descriptions of images propose combining current state-of-the-art techniques in both computer vision and natural language processing to form a complete image description approach. But what if we instead merged recent computer vision and language models into a single jointly trained system, taking an image and directly producing a human readable sequence of words to describe it? This idea comes from recent advances in machine translation between languages, where a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) transforms, say, a French sentence into a vector representation, and a second RNN uses that vector representation to generate a target sentence in German. Now, what if we replaced that first RNN and its input words with a deep Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) trained to classify objects in images? Normally, the CNN's last layer is used in a final Softmax among known classes of objects, assigning a probability that each object might be in the image. But if we remove that final layer, we can instead feed the CNN's rich encoding of the image into a RNN designed to produce phrases. We can then train the whole system directly on images and their captions, so it maximizes the likelihood that descriptions it produces best match the training descriptions for each image.

0.0056760716 = product of:
  0.017028214 = sum of:
    0.017028214 = product of:
      0.03405643 = sum of:
        0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 3780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03405643 = score(doc=3780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3780, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

19. 8.2017 9:24:22