A Comparison of Multi-instance Learning Algorithms

Motivated by various challenging real-world applications, such as drug activity prediction and image retrieval, multi-instance (MI) learning has attracted considerable interest in recent years. Compared with standard supervised learning, the MI learning task is more difficult as the label information of each training example is incomplete. Many MI algorithms have been proposed. Some of them are specifically designed for MI problems whereas others have been upgraded or adapted from standard single-instance learning algorithms. Most algorithms have been evaluated on only one or two benchmark datasets, and there is a lack of systematic comparisons of MI learning algorithms. This thesis presents a comprehensive study of MI learning algorithms that aims to compare their performance and find a suitable way to properly address different MI problems. First, it briefly reviews the history of research on MI learning. Then it discusses five general classes of MI approaches that cover a total of 16 MI algorithms. After that, it presents empirical results for these algorithms that were obtained from 15 datasets which involve five different real-world application domains. Finally, some conclusions are drawn from these results: (1) applying suitable standard single-instance learners to MI problems can often generate the best result on the datasets that were tested, (2) algorithms exploiting the standard asymmetric MI assumption do not show significant advantages over approaches using the so-called collective assumption, and (3) different MI approaches are suitable for different application domains, and no MI algorithm works best on all MI problems

Floating universal quantifier as a base-generated head in the VP periphery

The universal quantifier niz in Kavalan can immediately precede its DP associate or appear in a quantifier-floating construction where it is separated from its DP associate. This paper argues that floating niz is not derived from its non-floating counterpart as a result of stranding. They differ morphosyntactically and semantically. First of all, while non-floating niz in a negative sentence exhibits scope reconstruction, floating niz in a negative sentence induces scope-freezing effect. Secondly, floating niz should be analyzed as a full-fledged verb, whereas non-floating niz is a nominal modifier. Thirdly, floating niz is not sensitive to A/A’ distinction. Fourthly, floating and non-floating niz can co-occur in a sentence. Finally, floating niz can receive interpretations that are not available to non-floating niz. The differences between floating and non-floating niz indicate that they are derivationally distinct. The fact that floating niz is morphosyntactically realized as a verb further suggests that it is base-generated in a functional head in the VP periphery

Effects of precipitation conditions on the membrane morphology and permeation characteristics

[[abstract]]The permeability and permselectivity of asymmetric and particulate membranes towards glucose and proteins of various molecular sizes were studied. It was found that the skin layer of asymmetric membranes was permeable to glucose and insulin but effectively prevent the permeation of immunoglobulins. This result parallels our interest for the development of artificial pancreas. It was also found that skinless particulate membranes exhibited not only high permeation rates with respect to albumin and immunoglobulins but also good selectivity between these components. Thus, particulate membranes has the potential to be used in separating albumin from immunoglobulins for treating disorders related to immunoglobulin abnormalities.[[notice]]補正完畢[[journaltype]]國外[[incitationindex]]SCI[[incitationindex]]E

The syntactic derivations of interrogative verbs in Amis and Kavalan

Interrogative words that denote ‘what’, ‘how’, ‘where’, and ‘how many’ in Amis and Kavalan have the same morphosyntactic distribution as verbs. The present paper argues that their use as verbs is not due to unconstrained lexical idiosyncrasies, but exhibits consistent syntactic and semantic patterns. Their grammatical properties and restrictions follow from the interaction of the following factors: the inherent semantics of interrogative words, the available interpretation of the question where they occur, the verbal structures of the voice markers, and the syntactic principles and constraints like the Head Movement Constraint or the Transparence Condition. The syntactic analysis advocated in this paper can extend to other atypical non-interrogative verbs in the two languages and makes falsifiable predictions about what interrogative words can and cannot be used as verbs