A pattern description language—PADEL

1972 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth J. Breeding ◽  
John O. Amoss
Keyword(s):  
Description Language ◽  
Pattern Description

scholarly journals A SYNTACTIC OMNI-FONT CHARACTER RECOGNITION SYSTEM

1987 ◽  
Vol 01 (03n04) ◽  
pp. 303-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
GEORGE WOLBERG
Keyword(s):  
Pattern Matching ◽  
Character Recognition ◽  
Topological Structure ◽  
Scale Invariance ◽  
Recognition System ◽  
Description Language ◽  
Structural Pattern ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Pattern Description ◽  
Orthogonal Set

This paper introduces a syntactic omni-font character recognition system. The "omni-font" attribute reflects the wide range of fonts that fall within the class of characters that can be recognized. This includes hand-printed characters as well. A structural pattern-matching approach is employed. Essentially, a set of loosely constrained rules specify pattern components and their interrelationships. The robustness of the system is derived from the orthogonal set of pattern descriptors, location functions, and the manner in which they are combined to exploit the topological structure of characters. By virtue of the new pattern description language, PDL, developed in this paper, the user may easily write rules to define new patterns for the system to recognize. The system also features scale-invariance and user-definable sensitivity to tilt orientation.

scholarly journals Communicating compositional patterns

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Schulz ◽  
Francisco Quiroga ◽  
Samuel J. Gershman
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Complex Structures ◽  
Description Language ◽  
Compositional Model ◽  
Quality Ratings ◽  
Pattern Description ◽  
Compositional Patterns

AbstractHow do people perceive and communicate structure? We investigate this question by letting participants play a communication game, where one player describes a pattern, and another player redraws it based on the description alone. We use this paradigm to compare two models of pattern description, one compositional (complex structures built out of simpler ones) and one non-compositional. We find that compositional patterns are communicated more effectively than non-compositional patterns, that a compositional model of pattern description predicts which patterns are harder to describe, and that this model can be used to evaluate participants’ drawings, producing human-like quality ratings. Our results suggest that natural language can tap into a compositionally structured pattern description language.

scholarly journals Communicating Compositional Patterns

Open Mind ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 25-39
Author(s):  
Eric Schulz ◽  
Francisco Quiroga ◽  
Samuel J. Gershman
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Complex Structures ◽  
Description Language ◽  
Compositional Model ◽  
Quality Ratings ◽  
Pattern Description ◽  
Compositional Patterns

How do people perceive and communicate structure? We investigate this question by letting participants play a communication game, where one player describes a pattern, and another player redraws it based on the description alone. We use this paradigm to compare two models of pattern description, one compositional (complex structures built out of simpler ones) and one noncompositional. We find that compositional patterns are communicated more effectively than noncompositional patterns, that a compositional model of pattern description predicts which patterns are harder to describe, and that this model can be used to evaluate participants’ drawings, producing humanlike quality ratings. Our results suggest that natural language can tap into a compositionally structured pattern description language.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document