亚洲男人的天堂2018av,欧美草比,久久久久久免费视频精选,国色天香在线看免费,久久久久亚洲av成人片仓井空

The first ACM/IEEE TinyML Design Contest (TDC) held at the 41st International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD) in 2022 is a challenging, multi-month, research and development competition. TDC'22 focuses on real-world medical problems that require the innovation and implementation of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms on implantable devices. The challenge problem of TDC'22 is to develop a novel AI/ML-based real-time detection algorithm for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia over low-power microcontrollers utilized in Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (ICDs). The dataset contains more than 38,000 5-second intracardiac electrograms (IEGMs) segments over 8 different types of rhythm from 90 subjects. The dedicated hardware platform is NUCLEO-L432KC manufactured by STMicroelectronics. TDC'22, which is open to multi-person teams world-wide, attracted more than 150 teams from over 50 organizations. This paper first presents the medical problem, dataset, and evaluation procedure in detail. It further demonstrates and discusses the designs developed by the leading teams as well as representative results. This paper concludes with the direction of improvement for the future TinyML design for health monitoring applications.

Research on the theoretical expressiveness of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) has developed rapidly, and many methods have been proposed to enhance the expressiveness. However, most methods do not have a uniform expressiveness measure except for a few that strictly follow the $k$-dimensional Weisfeiler-Lehman ($k$-WL) test hierarchy. Their theoretical analyses are often limited to distinguishing certain families of non-isomorphic graphs, leading to difficulties in quantitatively comparing their expressiveness. In contrast to theoretical analysis, another way to measure expressiveness is by evaluating model performance on certain datasets containing 1-WL-indistinguishable graphs. Previous datasets specifically designed for this purpose, however, face problems with difficulty (any model surpassing 1-WL has nearly 100% accuracy), granularity (models tend to be either 100% correct or near random guess), and scale (only a few essentially different graphs in each dataset). To address these limitations, we propose a new expressiveness dataset, $\textbf{BREC}$, which includes 400 pairs of non-isomorphic graphs carefully selected from four primary categories (Basic, Regular, Extension, and CFI). These graphs have higher difficulty (up to 4-WL-indistinguishable), finer granularity (able to compare models between 1-WL and 3-WL), and a larger scale (400 pairs). Further, we synthetically test 16 models with higher-than-1-WL expressiveness on our BREC dataset. Our experiment gives the first thorough comparison of the expressiveness of those state-of-the-art beyond-1-WL GNN models. We expect this dataset to serve as a benchmark for testing the expressiveness of future GNNs. Our dataset and evaluation code are released at: //github.com/GraphPKU/BREC.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can achieve strong performance on many tasks by producing step-by-step reasoning before giving a final output, often referred to as chain-of-thought reasoning (CoT). It is tempting to interpret these CoT explanations as the LLM's process for solving a task. However, we find that CoT explanations can systematically misrepresent the true reason for a model's prediction. We demonstrate that CoT explanations can be heavily influenced by adding biasing features to model inputs -- e.g., by reordering the multiple-choice options in a few-shot prompt to make the answer always "(A)" -- which models systematically fail to mention in their explanations. When we bias models toward incorrect answers, they frequently generate CoT explanations supporting those answers. This causes accuracy to drop by as much as 36% on a suite of 13 tasks from BIG-Bench Hard, when testing with GPT-3.5 from OpenAI and Claude 1.0 from Anthropic. On a social-bias task, model explanations justify giving answers in line with stereotypes without mentioning the influence of these social biases. Our findings indicate that CoT explanations can be plausible yet misleading, which risks increasing our trust in LLMs without guaranteeing their safety. CoT is promising for explainability, but our results highlight the need for targeted efforts to evaluate and improve explanation faithfulness.

This study contributes to the recent discussions on indicating interdisciplinarity, i.e., going beyond catch-all metrics of interdisciplinarity. We propose a contextual framework to improve the granularity and usability of the existing methodology for interdisciplinary knowledge flow (IKF) in which scientific disciplines import and export knowledge from/to other disciplines. To characterize the knowledge exchange between disciplines, we recognize three aspects of IKF under this framework, namely, broadness, intensity, and homogeneity. We show how to utilize them to uncover different forms of interdisciplinarity, especially between disciplines with the largest volume of IKF. We apply this framework in two use cases, one at the level of disciplines and one at the level of journals, to show how it can offer a more holistic and detailed viewpoint on the interdisciplinarity of scientific entities than aggregated and context-unaware indicators. We further compare our proposed framework, an indicating process, with established indicators and discuss how such information tools on interdisciplinarity can assist science policy practices such as performance-based research funding systems and panel-based peer review processes.

Object Storage Systems (OSS) inside a cloud promise scalability, durability, availability, and concurrency. However, open-source OSS does not have a specific approach to letting users and administrators search based on the data, which is contained inside the object storage, without involving the entire cloud infrastructure. Therefore, in this paper, we propose Sherlock, a novel Content-Based Searching (CoBS) architecture to extract additional information from images and documents. Here, we store the additional information in an Elasticsearch-enabled database, which helps us to search for our desired data based on its contents. This approach works in two sequential stages. First, the data will be uploaded to a classifier that will determine the data type and send it to the specific model for the data. Here, the images that are being uploaded are sent to our trained model for object detection, and the documents are sent for keyword extraction. Next, the extracted information is sent to Elasticsearch, which enables searching based on the contents. Because the precision of the models is so fundamental to the search's correctness, we train our models with comprehensive datasets (Microsoft COCO Dataset for multimedia data and SemEval2017 Dataset for document data). Furthermore, we put our designed architecture to the test with a real-world implementation of an open-source OSS called OpenStack Swift. We upload images into the dataset of our implementation in various segments to find out the efficacy of our proposed model in real-life Swift object storage.

In order to advance academic research, it is important to assess and evaluate the academic influence of researchers and the findings they produce. Citation metrics are universally used methods to evaluate researchers. Amongst the several variations of citation metrics, the h-index proposed by Hirsch has become the leading measure. Recent work shows that h-index is not an effective measure to determine scientific impact - due to changing authorship patterns. This can be mitigated by using h-index of a paper to compute h- index of an author. We show that using fractional allocation of h-index gives better results. In this work, we reapply two indices based on the h-index of a single paper. The indices are referred to as: hp-index and hp-frac-index. We run large-scale experiments in three different fields with about a million publications and 3,000 authors. We also compare h-index of a paper with nine h-index like metrics. Our experiments show that hp-frac-index provides a unique ranking when compared to h-index. It also performs better than h-index in providing higher ranks to the awarded researcher.

Human-annotated labels and explanations are critical for training explainable NLP models. However, unlike human-annotated labels whose quality is easier to calibrate (e.g., with a majority vote), human-crafted free-form explanations can be quite subjective, as some recent works have discussed. Before blindly using them as ground truth to train ML models, a vital question needs to be asked: How do we evaluate a human-annotated explanation's quality? In this paper, we build on the view that the quality of a human-annotated explanation can be measured based on its helpfulness (or impairment) to the ML models' performance for the desired NLP tasks for which the annotations were collected. In comparison to the commonly used Simulatability score, we define a new metric that can take into consideration the helpfulness of an explanation for model performance at both fine-tuning and inference. With the help of a unified dataset format, we evaluated the proposed metric on five datasets (e.g., e-SNLI) against two model architectures (T5 and BART), and the results show that our proposed metric can objectively evaluate the quality of human-annotated explanations, while Simulatability falls short.

Reasoning is a fundamental aspect of human intelligence that plays a crucial role in activities such as problem solving, decision making, and critical thinking. In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in natural language processing, and there is observation that these models may exhibit reasoning abilities when they are sufficiently large. However, it is not yet clear to what extent LLMs are capable of reasoning. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on reasoning in LLMs, including techniques for improving and eliciting reasoning in these models, methods and benchmarks for evaluating reasoning abilities, findings and implications of previous research in this field, and suggestions on future directions. Our aim is to provide a detailed and up-to-date review of this topic and stimulate meaningful discussion and future work.

Classic machine learning methods are built on the $i.i.d.$ assumption that training and testing data are independent and identically distributed. However, in real scenarios, the $i.i.d.$ assumption can hardly be satisfied, rendering the sharp drop of classic machine learning algorithms' performances under distributional shifts, which indicates the significance of investigating the Out-of-Distribution generalization problem. Out-of-Distribution (OOD) generalization problem addresses the challenging setting where the testing distribution is unknown and different from the training. This paper serves as the first effort to systematically and comprehensively discuss the OOD generalization problem, from the definition, methodology, evaluation to the implications and future directions. Firstly, we provide the formal definition of the OOD generalization problem. Secondly, existing methods are categorized into three parts based on their positions in the whole learning pipeline, namely unsupervised representation learning, supervised model learning and optimization, and typical methods for each category are discussed in detail. We then demonstrate the theoretical connections of different categories, and introduce the commonly used datasets and evaluation metrics. Finally, we summarize the whole literature and raise some future directions for OOD generalization problem. The summary of OOD generalization methods reviewed in this survey can be found at //out-of-distribution-generalization.com.