Summary:
Paulson's paper describes a sketch recognition system for recognizing primitive shapes, and combinations of these shapes, with high accurarcy. The system constrains the user to draw each shape to recognize in a single stroke, but does not constrain the user in drawing style (i.e. not gestures). The shapes that the system recognizes include lines, polylines, circles, ellipses, arcs, curves, spirals, and helixes. Complex fits can be formed from these eight shapes.
Feature calculation for each stroke incorporates computing direction, speed, and curvature graphs, as well as finding the corners of the stroke. Furthermore, Paulson introduces two new metrics: NDDE and DCR. NDDE is the normalized distance between extremes, and calculates the difference between the stroke length between the highest and lowest directional values in the stroke, and divides this segment length by the total stroke length. Arcs and curves tend to have high NDDE values, whereas polylines have lower NDDE values. DCR is the direction change ratio of a stroke, and is calculated by dividing the maximum change in direction by the average direction change. Arcs tend to have little changes in direction over time, whereas the direction graph for a polyline contains spikes in direction change.
After this preprocessing, the stroke and computed features are passed to individual shape testers. These testers, once for each shape (line, arc, etc.), see if the stroke follows set rules for each primitive. For instance, in the case of a circle test, the stroke must have a minor and major axis ratio close to 1.0, the stroke's NDDE value must be high, and the feature area error of the stroke must be low. Each shape tester returns whether the stroke passed the test.
Finally, for each shape test passed, the interpretation is placed in a sorted hierarchy. The hierarchy assigns weights for shapes, based on the shape's commonness and how complex a fit is. The interpretations added to the hierarchy in a certain order, described in the paper.
Paulson's system obtains a 98.6% recognition rate for the entire system, and a 99.89% rate where the correct interpretation is within the top 3 handed to the user. The recognition gain comes from his two new features, which increase the system's accuracy by over 20%. The system ranking system helps sort the interpretations so that the system is 7% more likely to rank the correct interpretation as the top interpretation.
Discussion:
Paulson's results are quite amazing in that the system's recognition improves by 20% with just two new features. When analyzing his results table, I noticed that Sezgin's algorithm worked better than Paulson's when returning complex fits, but performed worse on every other shape test. Since Sezgin's method heavily favors complex fits these results seem logical.
I noticed that circles and ellipses are given the same hierarchy score (5) in the system, which striked me as odd since I'd want to try and favor circles more than ellipses. Since a circle is always an ellipse, but an ellipse is not always a circle, I would want to favor circles in the final ranking. In this way, the system will slightly prefer circles over ellipses when the two tests pass.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I know that you brought up your comments about the circle and ellipses on the day that the class discussed this paper, but I don't remember Dr. Hammond and Brandon's comments in regards to that. Your rationale of circles deserving of a higher score makes more sense to me as well. My own reasoning was more on the fact that users had a tendency to want more circles, since I figured ellipses don't seem as commonly used. This particular point you mentioned seemed to go well with fellow classmate Michael's comments on introducing a way for users to optionally tweak these scores.
Post a Comment