MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019010736 · doi:10.1109/icip.2014.7025519

Context-dependent BLSTM models. Application to offline handwriting recognition

2014· article· en· W2019010736 on OpenAlexafffund
Youssouf Chherawala, Partha Pratim Roy, Mohamed Cheriet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Context modelSpeech recognitionFeature (linguistics)HandwritingArtificial intelligenceCluster analysisHidden Markov modelNatural language processingPattern recognition (psychology)LinguisticsObject (grammar)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The BLSTM model has been recently introduced for sequence labeling tasks and provides state-of-the-art performance for handwriting recognition. Its recurrent connections integrate the context at the feature level over a long range. Nevertheless, this context is not explicitly modeled at the label level. Explicit context-modeling strategies have been applied to HMMs with improvement of the recognition rate. In this paper, we study the effect of context modeling on the performance of the BLSTM model. The baseline BLSTM, with context-independent character label, is compared with two context-dependent BLSTM, one modeling the left context and the other the right context. The results show that context-dependent models provide an improvement of the recognition rate, and demonstrate the ability of the BLSTM model to deal with a large number of models, without clustering. We tested our models on the RIMES database of Latin script documents.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207