Cited by 58,805Handwritten Text Recognition TechniquesVehicle License Plate RecognitionNeural Networks and Applications

Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition

Open access
Lecun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., Haffner, P.·1998·Proceedings of the IEEE

Abstract

Multilayer neural networks trained with the back-propagation algorithm constitute the best example of a successful gradient based learning technique. Given an appropriate network architecture, gradient-based learning algorithms can be used to synthesize a complex decision surface that can classify high-dimensional patterns, such as handwritten characters, with minimal preprocessing. This paper reviews various methods applied to handwritten character recognition and compares them on a standard handwritten digit recognition task. Convolutional neural networks, which are specifically designed to deal with the variability of 2D shapes, are shown to outperform all other techniques. Real-life document recognition systems are composed of multiple modules including field extraction, segmentation recognition, and language modeling. A new learning paradigm, called graph transformer networks (GTN), allows such multimodule systems to be trained globally using gradient-based methods so as to minimize an overall performance measure. Two systems for online handwriting recognition are described. Experiments demonstrate the advantage of global training, and the flexibility of graph transformer networks. A graph transformer network for reading a bank cheque is also described. It uses convolutional neural network character recognizers combined with global training techniques to provide record accuracy on business and personal cheques. It is deployed commercially and reads several million cheques per day.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/5.726791

Cites

125 of 125 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The use of pooling leads to loss of the exact position of the segmented voxel and thus can negatively impact accuracy.

    “An alternative would be the use of pooling ( LeCun et al., 1998 ), which however leads to loss of the exact position of the segmented voxel and thus can negatively impact accuracy.”

    From Efficient multi-scale 3D CNN with fully connected CRF for accurate brain lesion segmentation (2017) · cites this paper as LeCun et al., 1998

    In “A. Convolutional Networks” (page unavailable), the paper says subsampling reduces the precision with which feature positions are encoded. It discusses character recognition, not segmented voxels, and presents reduced positional precision as improving robustness to shifts and distortions rather than as a cause of lower accuracy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Feed-forward deep networks, in particular convolutional networks, are well-known to provide state-of-the-art results for image classification.

    “For image classification feed-forward deep networks, and in particular convolutional networks, are well-known to provide state-of-the-art results [26, 25].”

    From Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data (2016) · cites this paper as [26]

    The paper’s “Learning in Real Handwriting Recognition Systems” section reports that convolutional networks performed better than the other methods tested on handwritten-digit recognition. That supports the claim for a specific image-classification task, but not its broader assertion that feed-forward deep networks generally provide state-of-the-art image-classification results. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Object detectors based on CNN can be categorized into two primary types: single/one-stage detectors and two-stage detectors.

    “Overall, object detectors based on CNN [87] can be categorized into two primary types.”

    From Object Detection in Autonomous Vehicles under Adverse Weather: A Review of Traditional and Deep Learning Approaches (2024) · cites this paper as [87]

    The section “Object Detection and Spotting with SDNN” describes using a convolutional network for object detection, supporting the CNN-based detection part of the claim. It does not categorize detectors into one-stage and two-stage types. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The normalization method makes the network robust to illumination and contrast variations.

    “The normalization makes the network robust to illumination and contrast variation as demonstrated by [20].”

    From Multimodal learning for facial expression recognition (2015) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Object Detection and Spotting with SDNN section (page unavailable) says a Laplacian filter removes global illumination variations before face images are size-normalized. It does not attribute that effect to normalization or demonstrate robustness to contrast variation; the Invariance and Noise Resistance section instead discusses robustness to geometric distortions and noise. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Lifelong learning enables the prediction model to be updated in an online way, thereby maintaining its prediction performance.

    “In the edge-assisted SLAM system, since video frames and the corresponding tiles are generated on the fly, lifelong learning enables the prediction model to be updated in an online way, thereby maintaining its prediction performance.”

    From Orchestrating Joint Offloading and Scheduling for Low-Latency Edge SLAM (2025) · cites this paper as [27]

    In “B. Gradient-Based Learning” (page unavailable), the paper describes stochastic gradient as an “online update” that changes model parameters using individual samples. It does not address lifelong learning in an edge-assisted SLAM system or show that such updates maintain prediction performance as frames and tiles arrive. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. [12]12. M. Minsky and O. Selfridge, "Learning in random nets," in Proc. 4th London Symp. Information Theory, pp. 335-347, 1961.
  2. [17]17. Y. LeCun, "A learning scheme for asymmetric threshold networks," in Proc. Cognitiva '85, Paris, France, 1985, pp. 599-604.
  3. [19]19. Bienenstock, F. Fogelman-Soulië, and G. Weisbuch, Eds. Les Houches, France: Springer-Verlag, 1986, pp. 233-240.
  4. [20]20. D. B. Parker, "Learning-logic," Sloan School Manage., MIT, Cambridge, MA, Tech. Rep., TR-47, Apr. 1985.
  5. [21]21. Y. LeCun, Modéles Connexionnistes de l'Apprentissage (Con- nectionist Learning Models), Ph.D. dissertation, UniversitéP . et M. Curie (Paris 6), June 1987.
  6. [51]51. B. H. Juang and S. Katagiri, "Discriminative learning for minimum error classification," IEEE Trans. Acoustics, Speech, Signal Processing, vol. 40, pp. 3043-3054, Dec. 1992.
  7. [53]53. I. Guyon, I. Poujaud, L. Personnaz, G. Dreyfus, J. Denker, and Y. LeCun, "Comparing different neural net architectures for classifying handwritten digits," in Proc. IEEE IJCNN, Wash- ington, DC, vol. II, 1989, pp. 127-132,.
  8. [54]54. R. Ott, "Construction of quadratic polynomial classifiers," in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Pattern Recognition, 1976, pp. 161-165.
  9. [56]56. Y. Lee, "Handwritten digit recognition using k-nearest neigh- bor, radial-basis functions, and backpropagation neural net- works," Neural Computation, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 440-449, 1991.
  10. [58]58. G. Cybenko, "Approximation by superpositions of sigmoidal functions," Math. Control, Signals, Syst., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 303-314, 1989.
  11. [67]67. Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, and Y. Bengio, "Reading checks with graph transformer networks," in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acous- tics, Speech, Signal Processing. Munich, Germany, vol. 1, 1997, pp. 151-154,.
  12. [74]74. J. S. Bridle, "Alphanets: A recurrent 'neural' network archi- tecture with a hidden Markov model interpretation," Speech Commun., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 83-92, 1990.
  13. [77]77. X. Driancourt and L. Bottou, "MLP, LVQ and DP: Comparison & cooperation," in Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Neural Networks, Seattle, WA, vol. 2, 1991, pp. 815-819.
  14. [83]83. J. S. Denker and C. J. Burges, "Image segmentation and recognition," in The Mathematics of Induction. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1995.
  15. [84]84. L. Bottou, Une Approche théorique de l'Apprentissage Connex- ionniste: Applications à la Reconnaissance de la Parole, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Paris XI, France, 1991.
  16. [85]85. M. Rahim, Y. Bengio, and Y. LeCun, "Disriminative feature and model design for automatic speech recognition," in Proc. Eurospeech, Rhodes, Greece, 1997, pp. 75-78.
  17. [104]104. M. Mohri and M. Riley, "Weighted determinization and mini- mization for large vocabulary recognition," in Proc. Eurospeech '97, Rhodes, Greece, pp. 131-134.
  18. [110]110. S. Bengio and Y. Bengio, "An EM algorithm for asynchronous input/output hidden Markov models," in Proc. International Conference on Neural Information Processing, Hong-King, 1996, pp. 328-334.
  19. [113]113. M. Gilloux and M. Leroux, "Recognition of cursive script amounts on postal checks," in Proc. Europ. Conf. Postal Tech- nol., Nantes, France, June 1993, pp. 705-712.
  20. [115]115. L. Lam, C. Y. Suen, D. Guillevic, N. W. Strathy, M. Cheriet, K. Liu, and J. N. Said, "Automatic processing of informa- tion on checks," in Int. Conf. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vancouver, Canada, Oct. 1995, pp. 2353-2358.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lecun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., & Haffner, P.
Affiliations
  • AT&T (United States) (US)
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
Venue
Proceedings of the IEEE
Published
1998
Volume
86
Issue
11
Pages
2278-2324
ISSN
0018-9219 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2112796928
Cited by
58,805
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 3932 · 2025: 6037 · 2024: 5859 · 2023: 5924 · 2022: 5751 · 2021: 6779 · 2020: 6359 · 2019: 5708 · 2018: 4169 · 2017: 2778 · 2016: 1818 · 2015: 1223 · 2014: 644 · 2013: 396 · 2012: 267
FWCI
12.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the IEEE (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Handwritten Text Recognition Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Vehicle License Plate Recognition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
Keywords
document recognition, handwritten character recognition, handwritten digit recognition, convolutional neural networks, graph transformer networks, global training, backpropagation, online handwriting recognition, field extraction, language modeling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review