Search

20 Feb 2018: The averaged results are givenin Table 2. We performed a Kruskal test, followedby pairwise comparisons for every scenario for eachanswer and all differences are statistically signifi-cant (p < 0.03) apart

13 Mar 2018: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSAccuracy test Fig. 6 reproduces the quantitative results ofthe tests on Seq 1, 2 & 3. ... The comparable test accuracy to training under ground truth provides support for trainingclassifiers using the proposed methods.

13 Mar 2018: We used 18randomly selected training/test combinations for reporting identification rates. Comparative Methods. ... 0.9. 1. Dimension. Iden. tific. atio. n ra. te. Effect of the dimension on the test set.

13 Mar 2018: Using the later index,Test-C tests Sequence-I, Test-D tests Sequence-II. The correctratios of the coarse localization are shown in Fig. ... Fig. 9. Layout of the outdoor environment in a campus. Test-E tests Sequence-III.

20 Feb 2018: To test the capability of algorithms in differentenvironments, a set of tasks has been defined that spans a wide range of environments across a numberof dimensions:. ... The models areevaluated over 500 test dialogues and the results shown are averaged

13 Mar 2018: 9. Adding more parts helps performance on the test data up to a. ... effect on the RP EER (up to 100N percent for N test images).

13 Mar 2018: These meth-ods have achieved very good accuracy on a small number ofcontrolled test sets. ... We therefore useDKL(p(0)||p(i)) as a “distance measure” between trainingand test sets.

13 Mar 2018: To establish baseline performance, we compared ourrecognition algorithm to:. • State-of-the-art commercial system FaceItr by Identix[8] (the best performing software in the recent FaceRecognition Vendor Test [10]),. • ... perform well if imaging

20 Feb 2018: Prediction re-sults are shown in Figure 2 on two test sets; testA:1K dialogues, balanced regarding objective labels,at 15% SER and testB: containing 12K dialoguescollected at SERs of

20 Feb 2018: Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes for Spoken Dialog Systems. Jason D. Williams1 Steve Young AT&T Labs – Research Cambridge University. Engineering Department. Abstract. In a spoken dialog system, determining which action a machine