Comparison of Artificial Neural Network and Gaussian Naïve Bayes in Recognition of Hand-Writing Number

Herman, Lukman Syafie, Dolly Indra, As’ad Djamalilleil, Nirsal, Heliawaty Hamrul, Siska Anraeni, Lutfi Budi Ilmawan
{"title":"Comparison of Artificial Neural Network and Gaussian Naïve Bayes in Recognition of Hand-Writing Number","authors":"Herman, Lukman Syafie, Dolly Indra, As’ad Djamalilleil, Nirsal, Heliawaty Hamrul, Siska Anraeni, Lutfi Budi Ilmawan","doi":"10.1109/EIConCIT.2018.8878651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Current technological developments spur the application of pattern recognition in various fields, such as the introduction of signature patterns, fingerprints, faces, and handwriting. Human handwriting has differences between one another and often is difficult to read or difficult to recognize and this can hamper daily activities, such as transaction activities that require handwriting. Even though one of the human biometric features is handwriting. The purpose of this paper is to compare the algorithm of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Gaussian Naïve Bayes (GNB) in handwriting number recognition. Both of these algorithms are quite reliable in performing the classification process. ANN can do pattern recognition and provide good results. If the size of the training data is small, the accuracy of GNB provides good results. To recognize the handwriting pattern, the characteristics of the handwriting object are extracted using an invariant moment. The test results show that GNB produces a higher level of accuracy of 28.33% compared to the ANN of 11.67%. The resulting accuracy level is still very low. This is because the result extraction data has a small distance for each class or any number character.","PeriodicalId":424909,"journal":{"name":"2018 2nd East Indonesia Conference on Computer and Information Technology (EIConCIT)","volume":"2016 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 2nd East Indonesia Conference on Computer and Information Technology (EIConCIT)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/EIConCIT.2018.8878651","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Current technological developments spur the application of pattern recognition in various fields, such as the introduction of signature patterns, fingerprints, faces, and handwriting. Human handwriting has differences between one another and often is difficult to read or difficult to recognize and this can hamper daily activities, such as transaction activities that require handwriting. Even though one of the human biometric features is handwriting. The purpose of this paper is to compare the algorithm of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Gaussian Naïve Bayes (GNB) in handwriting number recognition. Both of these algorithms are quite reliable in performing the classification process. ANN can do pattern recognition and provide good results. If the size of the training data is small, the accuracy of GNB provides good results. To recognize the handwriting pattern, the characteristics of the handwriting object are extracted using an invariant moment. The test results show that GNB produces a higher level of accuracy of 28.33% compared to the ANN of 11.67%. The resulting accuracy level is still very low. This is because the result extraction data has a small distance for each class or any number character.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人工神经网络与高斯Naïve贝叶斯在手写体数字识别中的比较
当前的技术发展刺激了模式识别在各个领域的应用,例如签名模式、指纹、人脸和手写的引入。人类的笔迹彼此之间存在差异,通常难以阅读或难以识别,这可能会妨碍日常活动,例如需要手写的交易活动。尽管人类的生物特征之一是笔迹。本文的目的是比较人工神经网络(ANN)算法和高斯Naïve贝叶斯(GNB)算法在手写数字识别中的应用。这两种算法在执行分类过程中都是相当可靠的。人工神经网络可以进行模式识别,并提供了良好的结果。如果训练数据的规模较小,GNB的精度可以提供很好的结果。为了识别笔迹模式,使用不变矩提取笔迹对象的特征。测试结果表明,GNB的准确率为28.33%,高于人工神经网络的11.67%。得到的精度水平仍然很低。这是因为结果提取数据对于每个类或任何数字字符具有较小的距离。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Experimental Study on Zoning, Histogram, and Structural Methods to Classify Sundanese Characters from Handwriting Medicine Stock Forecasting Using Least Square Method Sentiment Analysis of Product Reviews using Naive Bayes Algorithm: A Case Study [EIConCIT 2018 Cover Page] Keynote Speech 3 Internet of Things (IoT) Technology For Star Fruit Plantation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1