MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412014383 · doi:10.18280/isi.300508

Hyperparameter Optimization for CNN, K-NN, and Decision Tree in Handwritten Digit Classification

2025· article· en· W4412014383 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yaqeen Ali, Sura Mahroos Searan, Rihab Hazim Qasim, Salah A. Aliesawi

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperparameterDecision treeNumerical digitArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Speech recognitionMachine learningMathematicsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Handwritten recognition of characters appears to be the most fascinating field of image processing research among the many studies that have been completed.Handwritten character recognition methods use scanned photos, documents, and real-time devices such as tablets, tabloids etc. as input, which is converted into digital text.For machine learning algorithms, hyper-parameters are important since they guide the training process and have a significant impact on model performance.This study thoroughly examines and emphasizes how careful parameter adjustment is necessary to optimize model performance and generalization.Our findings provide valuable insights to obtain high classification accuracy for handwritten digits using machine-learning techniques which are decision tree (DT), convolution neural network (CNN), and k-nearest neighbors (KNN) that are optimized through hyper-parameter tuning techniques: grid search and random search to modifying a machine learning model's to determine the best values of the parameters to enhance the model's.The optimization machine learning models were applied and compared on the MNIST digit database.The suggested techniques were able to identify optimal hyper-parameters for a variety of ML models.Our major goal is to match the accuracy of the classifier models along with their implementation time to obtain the best possible model for digit recognition.the outcome of our work indicate an accuracy rate of 97.3% for k-nearest neighbors tuning by grid search and 97.03% for k-nearest neighbors tuning by random search while the test accuracy of CNN based on grid search is 99.18% and for random search test Accuracy is 99.08 %.Finally, the test accuracy for decision trees based on grid search is 87.94% and for random search is 88.26%.

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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207