Comparison of smoothing techniques and recognition methods for online Kannada character recognition system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aimed at working on Online Recognition of Handwritten Kannada Characters. The recognition was done for the Top, Middle and Bottom strokes of Kannada characters. Genius MousePen i608X was used to collect the handwritten character samples to build the database. Handwritten character samples were collected for each character from a particular target-group which includes people who are native to Kannada language and belong to different age groups. These samples were semi-automatically validated, pre-processed and features were extracted. Segmentation of characters was done to divide the strokes into top stroke, middle stroke and bottom stroke. These segmented strokes were individually processed. The pre-processing techniques used in the project include removal of duplicated points, smoothing, interpolating missing points, resampling of points and size normalization. Smoothing techniques was compared for Gaussian and Moving Average Smoothing. Dominant point, writing direction and the curvature features were also extracted. In addition to this, recognition was carried out by KNN and SVM pattern recognition methods and a second level of verification rules was incorporated, yielding a maximum recognition rate of 92.5% for KNN and 94.35% for SVM.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".