“One Against One” or “One Against All”: Which One is Better for Handwriting Recognition with SVMs?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The “one against one ” and the “one against all ” are the two most popular strategies for multi-class SVM; however, according to the literature review, it seems impossible to conclude which one is better for handwriting recognition. Thus, we compared these two classical strategies on two different handwritten character recognition problems. Several post-processing methods for estimating posterior probability were also evaluated and the results were compared with the ones obtained using MLP. Finally, the “one against all” strategy appears significantly more accurate for digit recognition, while the difference between the two strategies is much less obvious with upper-case letters. Besides, the “one against one ” strategy is substantially faster to train and seems preferable for problems with a very large number of classes. To conclude, SVMs allow significantly better estimation of probabilities than MLP, which is promising from the point of view of their incorporation into handwriting recognition 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".