Optimum algorithm to minimize human interactions in sequential Computer Assisted Pattern Recognition

Given a Pattern Recognition task, Computer Assisted Pattern Recognition can be viewed as a series of solution proposals made by a computer system, followed by corrections made by a user, until an acceptable solution is found. For this kind of systems, the appropriate measure of performance is the expected number of corrections the user has to make. In the present work we study the special case when the solution proposals have a sequential nature. Some examples of this type of tasks are: language translation, speech transcription and handwriting text transcription. In all these cases the output (the solution proposal) is a sequence of symbols. In this framework it is assumed that the user corrects always the first error found in the proposed solution. As a consequence, the prefix of the proposed solution before the last error correction can be assumed error free in the next iteration. Nowadays, all the techniques in the literature relies in proposing, at each step, the most probable suffix given that a prefix of the ''correct'' output is already known. Usually the computation of the conditional most probable output is an NP-Hard or an undecidable problem (and then we have to apply some approximations) or, in some simple cases, complex dynamic programming techniques should be used (usually some variant of the Viterbi algorithm). In the present work we show that this strategy is not optimum when we are interested in minimizing the number of human interactions. Moreover we describe the optimum strategy that is simpler (and usually faster) to compute.

[1]  Hinrich Schütze,et al.  Introduction to information retrieval , 2008 .

[2]  Shigeo Abe DrEng Pattern Classification , 2001, Springer London.

[3]  Francisco Casacuberta,et al.  A Syntactic Pattern Recognition Approach to Computer Assisted Translation , 2004, SSPR/SPR.

[4]  Enrique Vidal,et al.  Application of OSTIA to Machine Translation Tasks , 1994, ICGI.

[5]  Francisco Casacuberta,et al.  Computer-assisted translation using speech recognition , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[6]  Francisco Casacuberta,et al.  A Novel Approach to Computer-Assisted Translation Based on Finite-State Transducers , 2005, FSMNLP.

[7]  Francisco Casacuberta,et al.  Statistical Phrase-Based Models for Interactive Computer-Assisted Translation , 2006, ACL.

[8]  Alejandro Héctor Toselli,et al.  Computer Assisted Transcription of Handwritten Text Images , 2007 .

[9]  Pierre Isabelle,et al.  Target-Text Mediated Interactive Machine Translation , 2004, Machine Translation.

[10]  Mark C. Genovese,et al.  Computer-Assisted Pattern Recognition of Autoantibody Results , 2005, Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology.

[11]  Salim Roukos,et al.  Bleu: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation , 2002, ACL.

[12]  Enrique Vidal,et al.  Language understanding and subsequential transducer learning , 1993, Comput. Speech Lang..

[13]  Guy Lapalme,et al.  Text prediction for translators , 2002 .

[14]  Frederick Jelinek,et al.  Statistical methods for speech recognition , 1997 .

[15]  David G. Stork,et al.  Pattern Classification , 1973 .

[16]  Alejandro Héctor Toselli,et al.  Computer Assisted Transcription for Ancient Text Images , 2007, ICIAR.

[17]  Francisco Casacuberta,et al.  Computer Assisted Transcription of Speech , 2007, IbPRIA.

[18]  Andreas Stolcke,et al.  Miniature Language Acquisition: A Touchstone for Cognitive Science , 2002 .