跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-09 07:12 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-08 09:30 — 2026-11-09 09:30(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-09 07:12最近发现新增版本:2026-11-08 06:02库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,057 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 3 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-09 07:10(北京时间)
版本更新 · v3arXiv:2411.05819

HierSentNet: Hierarchical Sentiment Analysis Framework for Hate Speech Detection Using Binary and Multiclass Classification

Shahran Rahman Alve, Faria Naznin, Md Touhidur Rahman, Mohammad Ashrafuzzaman Khan

原文摘要

Hate speech detectors must separate hateful posts from the far more common offensive ones, and two popular ideas for doing so are hierarchical classification and sentiment features. We define HierSentNet, a framework that combines a dominant-class-first hierarchy with sentiment features, and test each component in a controlled study on Davidson et al. (24,783 tweets) and HateXplain (19,229 posts) with five random splits and paired significance tests. With linear n-gram models, the dominant-class-first hierarchy of HierSentNet lowered macro-F1 by 1.1-1.5 points (p<=0.007), and VADER sentiment features never changed class-weighted Davidson macro-F1 significantly, because hateful and offensive tweets are almost equally negative. Class weighting was the only large effect (+2.0 to +3.5 macro-F1, +5.9 to +9.1 hate F1). These results held for NRC emotion features, soft hierarchical inference, smaller training sets, other imbalance remedies and a convolutional network. On OLID, whose labels are hierarchical, a matching hierarchy improved only its first decision (+1.4 macro-F1, p=0.009), and sentiment helped (+2.8, p=0.005) because there it separates offensive from non-offensive text. Robustness is the main weakness: cross-dataset transfer cut macro-F1 to 43-53, a reclaimed slur doubled the false hate rate, hate recall ranged from 54% to 85% across target communities, and on the HateCheck functional tests the detectors caught only 12-31% of hateful cases. Errors concentrate where annotators disagree, and temperature scaling restores the calibration lost to class weighting.

cs.CL · cs.AI

版本更新 · v5arXiv:2412.05331

Smart Surveillance: Deep Learning and Hybrid Approaches for Dynamic Scene Analysis, Object Detection and Motion Tracking

Shahran Rahman Alve, Shahnewaz Siddique

原文摘要

Event-triggered recording reduces the footage a surveillance camera must store, but the trigger decides how much idle video is kept, how many events are missed, and how much computation is spent. We compare six motion triggers (frame differencing, dense optical flow, MOG2, KNN, CNT, GSOC), a CNN detector, strided detection, and three motion-gated hybrids under one recording policy, on a benchmark of seven static-camera scenes (5,800 frames, 27 annotated events) with thresholds transferred to unseen scenes by leave-one-video-out. Detector-based triggers stored 19-28% of idle frames, against 36-89% for motion triggers. Under simulated camera jitter, frame differencing, optical flow, MOG2 and KNN stored 97-100% of idle frames, while detector triggers stayed below 29%. Running the detector on every 8th frame kept 99.7% of event frames at 9.8 ms of CPU per frame, cheaper and more robust than gating it with background subtraction. On VisDrone, raising YOLO11n's input from 640 to 1280 px raised AP from 15.5 to 26.8, more than a larger model, and INT8 quantization cut latency by 17% for 0.3 AP. In tracking, longer track memory raised IDF1 from 70.5 to 76.7, but every tracker recovered only 39-44% of overlapped people, because detection rather than association failed.

cs.CV · cs.AI

新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.38211

RainCheck: Harnessing Historical Weather Data with Machine Learning for Rainfall Forecasting in Bangladesh

Shahran Rahman Alve, Muhammad Zawad Mahmud, Samiha Islam, Al Jubayer Pial

原文摘要

Machine-learning rainfall forecasts are often evaluated by shuffling station records into random training and test sets. For rainfall, this lets a model see what happened at neighbouring stations on the very day it is asked to forecast, and it hides the fact that a seasonal lookup table already explains most of the variance. We quantify both effects on 618,650 station-days from 35 Bangladesh Meteorological Department stations (1948-2014). We compare random, temporal (train <=1999, test 2005-2014) and spatio-temporal (unseen stations and unseen years) evaluation, calendar-only versus antecedent-rainfall features, and six learners against climatology, persistence and SARIMA. Three findings stand out. First, a station-month climatology alone classifies high-rainfall months with 88.4% accuracy (AUC 0.950), and no learner improved on it by more than 0.8 points under temporal evaluation. Second, a calendar-only random forest reached a next-day wet-day AUC of 0.889 under a random split, higher than any model with real predictors under temporal evaluation, yet fell to 0.835, below climatology (0.859), on future years. Third, models with lagged rainfall add genuine but modest skill for next-day forecasts: a Brier skill score of 0.074 (95% CI 0.064-0.088) over climatology, rising to 0.091 when station and year inputs are removed and to 0.131 when other stations' same-day observations are added. A GRU sequence model matches but does not exceed gradient boosting, and skill disappears beyond a two-day lead. For monthly totals, no learner beat climatology significantly. We release a leakage-aware protocol and code so that future station-based studies report skill against climatology on held-out years.

cs.LG