We evaluate the predictions of two theories of syntactic processing complexity, dependency locality theory (DLT) and surprisal, against the Dundee corpus, which contains the eye-tracking record of 10 participants reading 51,000 words of newspaper text. Our results show that DLT integration cost is not a significant predictor of reading times for arbitrary words in the corpus. However, DLT successfully predicts reading times for nouns and verbs. We also find evidence for integration cost effects at auxiliaries, not predicted by DLT. For surprisal, we demonstrate that an unlexicalized formulation of surprisal can predict reading times for arbitrary words in the corpus. Comparing DLT integration cost and surprisal, we find that the two measures are uncorrelated, which suggests that a complete theory will need to incorporate both aspects of processing complexity. We conclude that eye-tracking corpora, which provide reading time data for naturally occurring, contextualized sentences, can complement experimental evidence as a basis for theories of processing complexity.

The psycholinguistic literature has identified two syntactic adaptation effects in language production: rapidly decaying short-term priming and long-lasting adaptation. To explain both effects, we present an ACT-R model of syntactic priming based on a wide-coverage, lexicalized syntactic theory that explains priming as facilitation of lexical access. In this model, two well-established ACT-R mechanisms, base-level learning and spreading activation, account for long-term adaptation and short-term priming, respectively. Our model simulates incremental language production and in a series of modeling studies, we show that it accounts for (a) the inverse frequency interaction; (b) the absence of a decay in long-term priming; and (c) the cumulativity of long-term adaptation. The model also explains the lexical boost effect and the fact that it only applies to short-term priming. We also present corpus data that verify a prediction of the model, that is, that the lexical boost affects all lexical material, rather than just heads.

Automatic description generation from natural images is a challenging problem that has recently received a large amount of interest from the computer vision and natural language processing communities. In this survey, we classify the existing approaches based on how they conceptualize this problem, viz., models that cast description as either generation problem or as a retrieval problem over a visual or multimodal representational space. We provide a detailed review of existing models, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, we give an overview of the benchmark image datasets and the evaluation measures that have been developed to assess the quality of machine-generated image descriptions. Finally we extrapolate future directions in the area of automatic image description generation.

This article shows that the Web can be employed to obtain frequencies for bigrams that are unseen in a given corpus. We describe a method for retrieving counts for adjective-noun, noun-noun, and verb-object bigrams from the Web by querying a search engine. We evaluate this method by demonstrating: (a) a high correlation between Web frequencies and corpus frequencies; (b) a reliable correlation between Web frequencies and plausibility judgments; (c) a reliable correlation between Web frequencies and frequencies recreated using class-based smoothing; (d) a good performance of Web frequencies in a pseudo disambiguation task.

Manually annotating object bounding boxes is central to building computer vision datasets, and it is very time consuming (annotating ILSVRC [53] took 35s for one highquality box [62]). It involves clicking on imaginary corners of a tight box around the object. This is difficult as these corners are often outside the actual object and several adjustments are required to obtain a tight box. We propose extreme clicking instead: we ask the annotator to click on four physical points on the object: the top, bottom, left-and right-most points. This task is more natural and these points are easy to find. We crowd-source extreme point annotations for PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012 and show that (1) annotation time is only 7s per box, 5× faster than the traditional way of drawing boxes [62]; (2) the quality of the boxes is as good as the original ground-truth drawn the traditional way; (3) detectors trained on our annotations are as accurate as those trained on the original ground-truth. Moreover, our extreme clicking strategy not only yields box coordinates, but also four accurate boundary points. We show (4) how to incorporate them into GrabCut to obtain more accurate segmentations than those delivered when initializing it from bounding boxes; (5) semantic segmentations models trained on these segmentations outperform those trained on segmentations derived from bounding boxes.