<title>New approach for segmentation and recognition of handwritten numeral strings</title>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a new system for segmentation and recognition of unconstrained handwritten numeral strings. The system uses a combination of foreground and background features for segmentation of touching digits. The method introduces new algorithms for traversing the top/bottom-foreground-skeletons of the touched digits, and for finding feature points on these skeletons, and matching them to build all the segmentation paths. For the first time a genetic representation is used to show all the segmentation hypotheses. Our genetic algorithm tries to search and evolve the population of candidate segmentations and finds the one with the highest confidence for its segmentation and recognition. We have also used a new method for feature extraction which lowers the variations in the shapes of the digits, and then a MLP neural network is utilized to produce the labels and confidence values for those digits. The NIST SD19 and CENPARMI databases are used for evaluating the system. Our system can get a correct segmentation-recognition rate of 96.07% with rejection rate of 2.61% which compares favorably with those that exist in the literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".