deletions | additions       diff --git a/sectionIntroduction_.tex b/sectionIntroduction_.tex  index a8a8f9d..d0bee9b 100644  --- a/sectionIntroduction_.tex  +++ b/sectionIntroduction_.tex 
...
\section{Problem Statement}  In our problem we will aim to use a pretrained CNN to generate random images corresponding to abstract concepts. We will use the pretrained VGGNET model with 16 layers from Oxford University. We will pass many images corresponding to a specific class (that we will get from ImageNet) to capture statistics of activations for neurons. We then will use our methods to generate random images corresponding to abstract concepts. We expect to be able to generate more realistic images than images generated by Simonyan and we can test this by simply comparing our generated images to created by Simonyan.  \subsection{Language}  All manuscripts must be in English.  \subsection{Dual submission}  Please refer to the author guidelines on the CVPR 2015 web page for a  discussion of the policy on dual submissions.  \subsection{Paper length}  For CVPR 2015, the rules about paper length have changed, so please  read this section carefully. Papers, excluding the references section,  must be no longer than eight pages in length. The references section  will not be included in the page count, and there is no limit on the  length of the references section. For example, a paper of eight pages  with two pages of references would have a total length of 10 pages.  {\bf Unlike previous years, there will be no extra page charges for  CVPR 2015.}  Overlength papers will simply not be reviewed. This includes papers  where the margins and formatting are deemed to have been significantly  altered from those laid down by this style guide. Note that this  \LaTeX\ guide already sets figure captions and references in a smaller font.  The reason such papers will not be reviewed is that there is no provision for  supervised revisions of manuscripts. The reviewing process cannot determine  the suitability of the paper for presentation in eight pages if it is  reviewed in eleven.  \subsection{The ruler}  The \LaTeX\ style defines a printed ruler which should be present in the  version submitted for review. The ruler is provided in order that  reviewers may comment on particular lines in the paper without  circumlocution. If you are preparing a document using a non-\LaTeX\  document preparation system, please arrange for an equivalent ruler to  appear on the final output pages. The presence or absence of the ruler  should not change the appearance of any other content on the page. The  camera ready copy should not contain a ruler. (\LaTeX\ users may uncomment  the \verb'\cvprfinalcopy' command in the document preamble.) Reviewers:  note that the ruler measurements do not align well with lines in the paper  --- this turns out to be very difficult to do well when the paper contains  many figures and equations, and, when done, looks ugly. Just use fractional  references (e.g.\ this line is $095.5$), although in most cases one would  expect that the approximate location will be adequate.  \subsection{Mathematics}  Please number all of your sections and displayed equations. It is  important for readers to be able to refer to any particular equation. Just  because you didn't refer to it in the text doesn't mean some future reader  might not need to refer to it. It is cumbersome to have to use  circumlocutions like ``the equation second from the top of page 3 column  1''. (Note that the ruler will not be present in the final copy, so is not  an alternative to equation numbers). All authors will benefit from reading  Mermin's description of how to write mathematics:  \url{http://www.pamitc.org/documents/mermin.pdf}.  \subsection{Blind review}  Many authors misunderstand the concept of anonymizing for blind  review. Blind review does not mean that one must remove  citations to one's own work---in fact it is often impossible to  review a paper unless the previous citations are known and  available.  Blind review means that you do not use the words ``my'' or ``our''  when citing previous work. That is all. (But see below for  techreports.)  Saying ``this builds on the work of Lucy Smith [1]'' does not say  that you are Lucy Smith; it says that you are building on her  work. If you are Smith and Jones, do not say ``as we show in  [7]'', say ``as Smith and Jones show in [7]'' and at the end of the  paper, include reference 7 as you would any other cited work.  An example of a bad paper just asking to be rejected:  \begin{quote}  \begin{center}  An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.  \end{center}  In this paper we present a performance analysis of our  previous paper [1], and show it to be inferior to all  previously known methods. Why the previous paper was  accepted without this analysis is beyond me.  [1] Removed for blind review  \end{quote}  An example of an acceptable paper:  \begin{quote}  \begin{center}  An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.  \end{center}  In this paper we present a performance analysis of the  paper of Smith \etal [1], and show it to be inferior to  all previously known methods. Why the previous paper  was accepted without this analysis is beyond me.  [1] Smith, L and Jones, C. ``The frobnicatable foo  filter, a fundamental contribution to human knowledge''.  Nature 381(12), 1-213.  \end{quote}  If you are making a submission to another conference at the same time,  which covers similar or overlapping material, you may need to refer to that  submission in order to explain the differences, just as you would if you  had previously published related work. In such cases, include the  anonymized parallel submission~\cite{Authors14} as additional material and  cite it as  \begin{quote}  [1] Authors. ``The frobnicatable foo filter'', F\&G 2014 Submission ID 324,  Supplied as additional material {\tt fg324.pdf}.  \end{quote}  Finally, you may feel you need to tell the reader that more details can be  found elsewhere, and refer them to a technical report. For conference  submissions, the paper must stand on its own, and not {\em require} the  reviewer to go to a techreport for further details. Thus, you may say in  the body of the paper ``further details may be found  in~\cite{Authors14b}''. Then submit the techreport as additional material.  Again, you may not assume the reviewers will read this material.  Sometimes your paper is about a problem which you tested using a tool which  is widely known to be restricted to a single institution. For example,  let's say it's 1969, you have solved a key problem on the Apollo lander,  and you believe that the CVPR70 audience would like to hear about your  solution. The work is a development of your celebrated 1968 paper entitled  ``Zero-g frobnication: How being the only people in the world with access to  the Apollo lander source code makes us a wow at parties'', by Zeus \etal.  You can handle this paper like any other. Don't write ``We show how to  improve our previous work [Anonymous, 1968]. This time we tested the  algorithm on a lunar lander [name of lander removed for blind review]''.  That would be silly, and would immediately identify the authors. Instead  write the following:  \begin{quotation}  \noindent  We describe a system for zero-g frobnication. This  system is new because it handles the following cases:  A, B. Previous systems [Zeus et al. 1968] didn't  handle case B properly. Ours handles it by including  a foo term in the bar integral.  ...  The proposed system was integrated with the Apollo  lunar lander, and went all the way to the moon, don't  you know. It displayed the following behaviours  which show how well we solved cases A and B: ...  \end{quotation}  As you can see, the above text follows standard scientific convention,  reads better than the first version, and does not explicitly name you as  the authors. A reviewer might think it likely that the new paper was  written by Zeus \etal, but cannot make any decision based on that guess.  He or she would have to be sure that no other authors could have been  contracted to solve problem B.  FAQ: Are acknowledgements OK? No. Leave them for the final copy.