MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Memory-Efficient Models for Scene Text Recognition via Neural Architecture Search

2020· article· en· W3026638717 on OpenAlexaff
SeulGi Hong, Donghyun Kim, Min-Kook Choi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArchitectureArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingPattern recognition (psychology)Computer architectureSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meta-learning techniques based on neural architecture search (NAS) show excellent performance in the design of learning models used in deep neural networks. In particular, when NAS is applied to design a convolutional neural network (CNN) for image recognition, the performance of the network when evaluating public benchmark datasets such as CIFAR10 and ImageNet exceeds that of hand-designed models. Nevertheless, there are very few cases wherein NAS has been applied to real-world problems, i.e. recognition problems with a limited dataset. We proposed a method in which the NAS technique does not require a proxy task for the scene text recognition (STR) framework to apply the NAS method to a new image recognition field. Therefore, we proposed an architecture space for CNN-based modules in the STR framework and applied the ProxylessNAS method, enabling end-to-end training while meta learners design a new model that requires only a single commonly used GPU (approximately 100 GPU hours). To evaluate the STR model obtained by the proposed NAS method, seven STR benchmark datasets were used. Finally, the obtained model could achieve a performance similar to that of the ideal model in terms of accuracy and number of parameters. We thus confirm that the model design based on NAS can be effectively applied to STR scenarios.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207