The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On the effectiveness of receptors in recognition systems
Abstract
In the type of recognition system under discussion, the physical sample to be recognized is first subjected to a battery of tests; on the basis of the test results, the sample is then assigned to one of a number of prespecified categories. The theory of how test results should be combined to yield an optimal assignment has been discussed in an earlier paper. Here, attention is focused on the tests themselves. At present, we usually measure the effectiveness of a set of tests empirically, i.e., by determining the percentage of correct recognitions made by some recognition device which uses these tests. In this paper, we discuss some of the theoretical problems encountered in trying to determine a more formal measure of the effectiveness of a set of tests; a measure which might be a practical substitute for the empirical evaluation. Specifically, the following question is considered: What constitutes an effective set of tests, and how is this effectiveness dependent on the correlations among, and the properties of, the individual tests in the set? Specific suggestions are considered for the case in which the test results are normally distributed, but arbitrarily correlated. The discussion is supported by the results of experiments dealing with automatic recognition of hand-printed characters.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain.
Rosenblatt, F. (1958) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0042519 · Cited by 12,280
Cited by
(1998) · Cited by 3,476
Particle swarm optimization for feature selection in classification: a multi-objective approach
Xue, B., Zhang, M., & Browne, W. N. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2012.2227469 · Cited by 1,282
Conditional random fields for activity recognition
Vail, D. L., Veloso, M. M., & Lafferty, J. D. (2007) · Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems · doi:10.1145/1329125.1329409 · Cited by 357
Real-Time Inference of Complex Mental States from Facial Expressions and Head Gestures
El Kaliouby, R., & Robinson, P. (2005) · 2004 Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2004.427 · Cited by 282
Improved Accuracy in Predicting the Best Sensor Fusion Architecture for Multiple Domains
Molino-Minero-Re, E., Aguileta, A. A., Brena, R. F., & Garcia-Ceja, E. (2021) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s21217007 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Marill, T., & Green, D.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Information Theory
- Published
- 1963-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 11-17
- ISSN
- 0018-9448 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2120216197
- Cited by
- 664
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.