↓ Skip to main content

A Bayesian generative model for learning semantic hierarchies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Bayesian generative model for learning semantic hierarchies
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00417
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roni Mittelman, Min Sun, Benjamin Kuipers, Silvio Savarese

Abstract

Building fine-grained visual recognition systems that are capable of recognizing tens of thousands of categories, has received much attention in recent years. The well known semantic hierarchical structure of categories and concepts, has been shown to provide a key prior which allows for optimal predictions. The hierarchical organization of various domains and concepts has been subject to extensive research, and led to the development of the WordNet domains hierarchy (Fellbaum, 1998), which was also used to organize the images in the ImageNet (Deng et al., 2009) dataset, in which the category count approaches the human capacity. Still, for the human visual system, the form of the hierarchy must be discovered with minimal use of supervision or innate knowledge. In this work, we propose a new Bayesian generative model for learning such domain hierarchies, based on semantic input. Our model is motivated by the super-subordinate organization of domain labels and concepts that characterizes WordNet, and accounts for several important challenges: maintaining context information when progressing deeper into the hierarchy, learning a coherent semantic concept for each node, and modeling uncertainty in the perception process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 30 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 25%
Student > Master 7 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 16 50%
Psychology 5 16%
Engineering 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 3 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2014.
All research outputs
#20,230,558
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,959
of 29,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,910
of 226,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#308
of 346 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,663 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 226,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 346 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.