Search

13 Mar 2018: This is restrictive in practicein that test data may contain distortions that take it outside the strict ambit of the trainingpositives. ... This can be computed in terms of likelihoods. (1)so then the test becomes (2)where.

20 Feb 2018: During test-ing, we greedily selected the most probable intention andapplied beam search with the beamwidth set to 10 when de-coding the response. ... The significance test is based on atwo-tailed student-t test, between NDM and LIDMs.

20 Feb 2018: Bold values are statis-tically significant compared to non-bold values in the same groupusing an unpaired t-test with p < 0.01. ... The difference between bold valuesand non-bold values is statistically significant using an unpaired t-test where p < 0.02.

13 Mar 2018: This is achieved by sampling the network withrandomly dropped out connections at test time. ... At test time we perform inference byaveraging stochastic samples from the dropout network.

20 Feb 2018: 2016a). Statisticalsignificance was computed using two-tailed Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test ( p <0.05) to compare models w/and w/o snapshot learning. ... 0.540 0.559 0.459. Table 2: Average activation of gates on test set.

20 Feb 2018: Sections 3 and 4 detail a method for addressing these issues, and the procedure used to test the method, respectively.

13 Mar 2018: We perform the adapted online feature selection algorithm (see Alg. 1) on a numberof test sequences. ... We take a single test image, and create a test sequence by adding fixed size, randomlypositioned black squares to simulate occlusion.

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.

20 Feb 2018: functionsfrom Table 1.The intention was, not only to test which algo-rithm yields the best policy performance, but alsoto examine the speed of convergence to the opti-mal policy.

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: 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.

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: 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).

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: 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.

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

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

13 Mar 2018: 2. Fig. 1. SegNet predictions on urban and highway scene test samples from the wild. ... 1). Some example test resultsproduced on randomly sampled road scene images from Googleare shown in Fig.

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: All TSR differences are statis-tically significant (t-test, p < 0.05). 4,000 dialogues in 10 batches.