Feature Set Evaluation for Offline Handwriting Recognition Systems: Application to the Recurrent Neural Network Model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of handwriting recognition systems is dependent on the features extracted from the word image. A large body of features exists in the literature, but no method has yet been proposed to identify the most promising of these, other than a straightforward comparison based on the recognition rate. In this paper, we propose a framework for feature set evaluation based on a collaborative setting. We use a weighted vote combination of recurrent neural network (RNN) classifiers, each trained with a particular feature set. This combination is modeled in a probabilistic framework as a mixture model and two methods for weight estimation are described. The main contribution of this paper is to quantify the importance of feature sets through the combination weights, which reflect their strength and complementarity. We chose the RNN classifier because of its state-of-the-art performance. Also, we provide the first feature set benchmark for this classifier. We evaluated several feature sets on the IFN/ENIT and RIMES databases of Arabic and Latin script, respectively. The resulting combination model is competitive with state-of-the-art systems.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it