{"title": "Decoding Cursive Scripts", "book": "Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems", "page_first": 833, "page_last": 840, "abstract": null, "full_text": "Decoding  Cursive Scripts \n\nYoram  Singer \n\nand  Naftali Tishby \n\nInstitute of Computer Science  and \nCenter for  Neural  Computation \n\nHebrew  University, Jerusalem  91904,  Israel \n\nAbstract \n\nOnline cursive handwriting recognition  is  currently one of the most \nintriguing challenges in  pattern recognition.  This study  presents  a \nnovel  approach  to this  problem which  is  composed  of two  comple(cid:173)\nmentary  phases.  The first  is  dynamic encoding  of the  writing  tra(cid:173)\njectory into a  compact sequence  of discrete  motor control symbols. \nIn this compact representation we largely remove the redundancy of \nthe script,  while  preserving  most of its intelligible components.  In \nthe second  phase these  control sequences  are used  to train adaptive \nprobabilistic acyclic automata (PAA) for the important ingredients \nof the writing  trajectories,  e.g.  letters.  We  present  a  new  and effi(cid:173)\ncient  learning algorithm for such stochastic automata, and demon(cid:173)\nstrate  its  utility  for  spotting  and  segmentation of cursive  scripts. \nOur  experiments  show  that  over  90%  of  the  letters  are  correctly \nspotted  and  identified,  prior to  any  higher  level  language  model. \nMoreover,  both  the  training  and  recognition  algorithms  are  very \nefficient  compared to other  modeling methods, and the models are \n'on-line' adaptable to other  writers  and  styles. \n\n1 \n\nIntroduction \n\nWhile the emerging technology of pen-computing is already available on the world's \nmarkets,  there  is  an  on  growing  gap  between  the  state  of  the  hardware  and  the \nquality  of  the  available  online  handwriting  recognition  algorithms.  Clearly,  the \ncritical  requirement for  the  success  of this  technology  is  the  availability of reliable \nand  robust  cursive  handwriting recognition  methods. \n\n833 \n\n\f834 \n\nSinger and Tishby \n\nWe  have  previously  proposed  a  dynamic encoding  scheme  for  cursive  handwriting \nbased  on  an  oscillatory  model  of handwriting  [8,  9]  and  demonstrated  its  power \nmainly through analysis by synthesis.  Here  we  continue with this paradigm and use \nthe  dynamic encoding  scheme  as  the  front-end  for  a  complete  stochastic  model  of \ncursive  script. \n\nThe  accumulated  experience  in  temporal  pattern  recognition  in  the  past  30  years \nhas  yielded  some  important lessons  relevant  to  handwriting.  The first  is  that  one \ncan not predefine the basic 'units' of such temporal patterns  due  to the strong inter(cid:173)\naction, or 'coarticulation' , between such units.  Any reasonable model must allow for \nthe  large variability of the  basic  handwriting components in  different  contexts and \nby  different  writers.  Thus  true  adaptability is  a  key  ingredient  of a  good stochas(cid:173)\ntic  model  of handwriting.  Most,  if not  all,  currently  used  models  of handwriting \nand  speech  are  hard  to  adapt and  require  vast  amounts of training  data for  some \nrobustness  in performance.  In  this paper we  propose a  simpler stochastic modeling \nscheme, which  we  call  Probabilistic Acyclic  Automata (PAA),  with  the  important \nfeature  of being  adaptive.  The  training  algorithm  modifies  the  architecture  and \ndimensionality of the  model while optimizing its predictive  power.  This is  achieved \nthrough  the  minimization  of the  \"description  length\"  of the  model  and  training \nsequences,  following  the  minimum  description  length  (MDL)  principle.  Another \ninteresting feature  of our  algorithm is  that  precisely  the  same procedure  is  used  in \nboth  training and recognition phases,  which  enables  continuous adaptation. \n\nThe  structure  of the  paper  is  as  follows.  In  section  2  we  review  our  dynamic  en(cid:173)\ncoding method, used  as the front-end  to the stochastic modeling phase.  We  briefly \ndescribe  the estimation and quantization process,  and show  how  the discrete  motor \ncontrol  sequences  are  estimated  and  used ,  in  section  3.  Section  4  deals  with  our \nstochastic  modeling  approach  and  the  PAA  learning  algorithm.  The  algorithm is \ndemonstrated  by  the  modeling of handwritten  letters.  Sections  5  and  6  deal  with \npreliminary applications of our approach to segmentation and recognition of cursi ve \nhandwriting. \n\n2  Dynamic encoding of cursive handwriting \n\nMotivated  by  the  oscillatory  motion  model  of handwriting,  as  described  e.g.  by \nHollerbach  in  1981  [2],  we  developed  a  parameter  estimation  and  regularization \nmethod which  serves  for  the analysis,  synthesis  and coding  of cursive  handwriting . \nThis regularization technique  results in a  compact and efficient  discrete  representa(cid:173)\ntion of handwriting. \n\nHandwriting is generated  by  the human muscular motor system, which  can be sim(cid:173)\nplified as spring muscles near a mechanical equilibrium state.  When the movements \nare  small  it  is  justified  to  assume  that  the  spring  muscles  operate  in  the  linear \nregime , so  the  basic movements are  simple harmonic oscillations,  superimposed  by \na simple linear drift.  Movements are excited by selecting a pair of agonist-antagonist \nmuscles that are modeled by the spring pair.  In a restricted form this simple motion \nis  described  by  the following  two equations, \n\nVx(t)  = x(t) = acos(wxt + f/;) + c  Vy(t)  = yet)  = bcos(wyt)\n\n(1) \nwhere  Vx(t)  and Vy(t)  are the horizontal and vertical pen velocities  respectively,  Wx \nand Wy  are  the  angular velocities,  a, b are  the  velocity  amplitudes,  \u00a2 is  the relative \n\n, \n\n\fDecoding Cursive Scripts \n\n835 \n\nphase  lag ,  and  c  is  the  horizontal  drift  velocity.  Assuming  that  these  describe \nthe  true  trajectory,  the  horizontal  drift,  c,  is  estimated  as  the  average  horizontal \nvelocity,  c = Jv  2:[:1 Vx(i).  For  fixed  values  of the  parameters  a, b,w  and  1;  these \nequations  describe  a  cycloidal trajectory. \n\nOur  main assumption is  that  the cycloidal  trajectory  is  the  natural  (free)  pen  mo(cid:173)\ntion,  which  is  modified  only  at  the  velocity  zero  crossings.  Thus  changes  in  the \ndynamical parameters occur only  at  t he  zero  crossings  and  preserve  the  continuity \nof the  velocity  field.  This  assumption  implies  that  the  angular  velocities  W x , Wy \nand amplitudes a, b can  be considered  constant  between  consecutive  zero  crossings. \nDenoting by tf and t; , the i'th zero  crossing locations of the horizontal and vertical \nvelocities , and by Li and L; , the horizontal and vertical progression during the i 'th \ninterval,  then  the  estimated amplitudes are,  a  =  2(tf~ =tX)  ,  b =  2(J~ :t Y )'  Those \n\u2022 \namplitudes define  the  vertical  and horizontal scales  of the  written letters. \n\n.+1 \n\n\u2022 \n\n.+1 \n\nExamination of the  vertical  velocity  dynamics  reveals  the  following :  (a)  There  is \na  virtual  center  of the  vertical  movement and  velocity  trajectory  is  approximately \nsymmetric around  this  center.  (b) The  vertical  velocity  zero  crossings  occur  while \nthe pen is  at almost fixed  vertical  levels  which  correspond  to high,  normal and  low \nmodulation  values,  yielding  altogether  5  quantized  levels.  The  actual  pen  levels \nachieved  at  the  vertical  velocity  zero  crossings  vary  around  the  quantized  values, \nwith  approximately  normal  distribution.  Let  the  indicator,  It  (It  E  {I , . . . , 5}), \nbe  the  most  probable  quantized  level  when  the  pen  is  at  the  position  obtained  at \nthe  t'th  zero  crossing. \n\\Ve  need  to  estimate  concurrently  the  5  quantized  levels \nH 1,  ... , H 5,  their  variance  (J'  (assumed  the  same for  all  levels),  and  the  indicators \nIt.  In  this model the  observed  data  is  the  sequence  of actual  pen  levels  L(t),  while \nthe  complete  data  is  the  sequence  of levels  and  indicators  {It , L(t)} .  The  task  of \nestimating the  parameters  {Hi , (J'}  is  performed via maximum  likelihood estimation \nfrom  incomplete  data,  commonly done by  the  EM algorithm[l]  and described  in [9]. \nThe horizontal amplitude is  similarly quantized  to 3 levels. \n\nAfter performing slant equalization of the handwriting, namely, orthogonalizing the \nx  and  y  motions ,  the  velocities  Vx(t) , \"~(t)  become  approximately  uncorrelated. \nWhen  Wx  ~ wy ,  the  two  velocities  are  uncorrelated  if there  is  a  \u00b1900  phase-lag \nbetween  Vx  and  Vy .  There  are also locations of total halt in both  velocities  (no pen \nmovement) which  we  take as  a  zero  phase  lag.  Considering  the  vertical oscillations \nas  a  'master clock', the horizontal oscillations can be viewed as  a 'slave clock ' whose \nphase  and  amplitude  vary  around  the  'master  clock'.  For  English  cursive  writing, \nthe  frequency  ratio  between  the  two  clocks  is  limited to  the  set  {~, 1,2},  thus  Vy \ninduces  a  grid  for  the  possible  Vx  zero  crossings.  The  phase-lag  of the  horizontal \noscillation  is  therefore  restricted  to  the  values  00, \u00b1900  at  the  zero  crossings  of \nVy .  The  most  likely  phase-lag  trajectory  is  determined  by  dynamic  programming \nover  the  entire  grid.  At  the  end  of this  process  the  horizontal oscillations are fully \ndetermined by  the  vertical oscillations and  the  pen trajectory 's  description greatly \nsimplified. \n\nThe  variations in  the  vertical  angular  velocity  for  a  given  writer  are  small, except \nin  short  intervals  where  the  writer  hesitates  or  stops.  The  only  information that \nshould  be  preserved  is  the  typical  vertical  angular  velocity,  denoted  by  w.  The \n\n\f836 \n\nSinger and Tishby \n\nnormalized discretized  equations of motion now  become, \n\n{ ~ \n\nai sin(wt + <Pi) + 1 \nhsin(wt) \n\nai  E  {AI, Ai, A3} <Pj  E  {-90\u00b0, 0\u00b0, 90\u00b0} \n\nhE {H1 2  - Hil  11::; 11 ,/2 ::;  5}  . \n\n(2) \n\nWe  used  analysis  by  synthesis  technique  in  order  to  verify  our  assumptions  and \nestimation  scheme.  The  final  result  of  the  whole  process  is  depicted  in  Fig.  1, \nwhere  the original handwriting is  plotted together  with its reconstruction  from the \ndiscrete  representation. \n\nFigure  1:  The original and  the fully  quantized cursive  scripts. \n\n3  Discrete control  sequences \n\nThe  process  described  in  the  previous  section  results  in  a  many  to  one  mapping \nfrom  the  continuous  velocity  field,  Vx(t), Vy(t),  to  a  discrete  set  of symbols.  This \nset  is  composed  of the  cartesian  product  of the  quantized  vertical  and  horizontal \namplitudes and the phase-lags between  these  velocities .  We  treat  this  discrete  con(cid:173)\ntrol  sequence  as  a  cartesian  product  time  series.  Using  the  value  (0'  to  indicate \nthat  the  corresponding  oscillation  continues  with  the  same  dynamics ,  a  change  in \nthe  phase  lag can  be  encoded  by  setting  the  code  to zero  for  one  dimension, while \nswitching  to  a  new  value  in  the  other  dimension.  A  zero  in  both  dimensions  in(cid:173)\ndicates  no  activity.  In  this  way  we  can  model  'pen  ups' intervals  and  incorporate \nauxiliary symbols  like  'dashes', 'dots',  and  'crosses',  that play  an  important role  in \nresolving  disambiguations  between  letters.  These  auxiliary  are  modeled  as  a  sep(cid:173)\narate  channel  and  are  ordered  according  to  their  X  coordinate .  We  encode  the \ncontrol  levels  by  numbers  from  1  to  5 ,  for  the  5  levels  of vertical  positions.  The \nquantized  horizontal  amplitudes  are  coded  by  5  values  as  well:  2 for  positive  am(cid:173)\nplitudes  (small and  large),  2  for  negative  amplitudes,  and  one  for  zero  amplitude. \nBelow  is  an example of our  discrete  representation for  the  handwriting depicted  in \nFig.  1.  The  upper  and  lower  lines  encode  the  vertical  and  horizontal  oscillations \nrespectively,  and the auxiliary channel is  omitted.  In this example there is  only one \nlocation  where  both  symbols are  (0', indicating a  pen-up  at  the  end  of the  word. \n240204204001005002040202204020402424204020500204020402400440240220 \n104034030410420320401050010502425305010502041032403050033105001000 \n\n4  Stochastic modeling of the motor control  sequences \n\nExisting stochastic  modeling methods,  such  as  Hidden  Markov  Models  (HMM)  [3], \nsuffer from several serious drawbacks.  They suffer from the need to 'fix' a-priory the \n\n\fDecoding Cursive Scripts \n\n837 \n\narchitecture  of the  model;  they  require  large  amounts of segmented training  data; \nand  they  are  very  hard to adapt to new  data.  The stochastic model presented  here \nis  an on-line learning algorithm whose important property is its simple adaptability \nto  new  examples.  We  begin  with  a  brief introduction  to  probabilistic  automata , \nleaving  the  theoretical  issues  and  some  of  the  more  technical  details  to  another \nplace. \nA  probabilistic  automaton  is  a  6-tuple  (Q , ~ ,  T\", qs, qe),  where  Q  is  a  finite  set \n:  Q  x  ~ --+  Q  is  the  state  transition \nof  n  states,  ~ is  an  alphabet  of  size  k,  T \nfunction,  ,  :  ~ x  Q  --+  [0,1]  is  the  transition  (output)  probability where  for  every \nq  E  Q, LaE~ ,( O'lq)  = l.  qs  E  Q is  a  start state,  and  qe  E  Q is  an  end  state.  A \nprobabilistic  automaton  is  called  acyclic  if it  contains  no  cycles.  We  denote  such \nautomata by  PAA.  This type of automaton is  also known as  a  Markov process  with \na  single  source  and a  single absorbing state.  The rest of the states are  all  transient \nstates.  Such automata induce non-zero probabilities on a finite  set of strings .  Given \nan input string a =  (0'1,  .. . , 0' n)  if at the of end its  'run' the automaton entered the \nfinal  state qe,  the probability of a  string a is  defined  to be,  pea) = n{:l ,(O'ilqi-l) \nwhere  qo  = qs,  qi  = T(qi-1, O'i) .  On  the other  hand , if qN  f. qe then  pea) =  O. \nThe  inference  of the  P AA  structure  from  data can  be  viewed  as  a  communication \nproblem.  Suppose  that  one  wants  to  transmit  an  ensemble  of strings,  all  created \nby  the  same  PAA.  If both  sides  know  the  structure  and  probabilities  of the  PAA \nthen the transmitter can optimally encode  the strings by  using the  PAA transition \nprobabilities.  If only  the  transmitter  knows  the  structure  and  the  receiver  has \nto  discover  it  while  receiving  new  strings,  each  time  a  new  transition  occurs ,  the \ntransmitter has to send the next state index as well .  Since the automaton is acyclic, \nthe  possible  next  states  are  limited  to  those  which  do  not  form  a  cycle  when  the \nnew  edge  is  added  to  the  automaton.  Let  k~  be  the  number  of legal  next  states \nfrom  a  state  q  known  to  the  receiver  at  time  t.  Then  the  encoding  of the  next \nstate  index  requires  at  least  log2(k~ + 1)  bits.  The  receiver  also  needs  to  estimate \nthe  state transition probability from the  previously received  strings.  Let  n(O'lq)  be \nthe  number of times the symbol 0'  has been  observed  by the receiver  while being in \nstate q.  Then the transition probability is estimated by  Laplace 's rule of succession, \n?(O'lq)  =  L  n(alq )~\\  1 I'  In sum,  if q is  the  current  state  and  ktq  the  number  of \npossible next states known to the receiver , the number of bits required  to encode the \nnext  symbol 0'  (assuming optimal coding scheme)  is  given  by:  (a)  if the transition \nT(q, 0')  has already been observed:  -log2(P(0'Iq))  ; (b) if the transition T(q, 0')  has \nnever  occurred  before:  -log2(.P(0'Iq)) + log2(k~ + 1). \nIn  training  such  a  model  from  empirical  observations  it  is  necessary  to  infer  the \nstructure  of the  PAA  as  well  its  parameters.  We  can  thus  use  the  above  coding \nscheme  to find  a  minimal description  length  (MDL)  of the  data, provided  that our \nmodel  assumption  is  correct.  Since  the  true  PAA  is  not  known  to  us,  we  need  to \nimitate the role of the receiver in order to find  the optimal coding of a message.  This \ncan  be  done  efficiently  via dynamic  programming for  each  individual string.  After \nthe optimal coding for  a single string has been found , the  new  states are added , the \ntransition probabilities ?(O'lq)  are  updated  and  the number of legal  next  states  kg \nis  recalculated.  An  exan~ple of the  learning  algorithm is  given  in  Fig.  2,  with  the \nestimated probabilities P,  written  on  the  graph edges. \n\nn(al  q  + ~ \n\nI \n\n(7  EE \n\n\f838 \n\nSinger and Tishby \n\n(b) \n\n(d) \n\nFigure  2:  Demonstration  of  the  PAA  learning  algorithm .  Figure  (a)  shows  the \noriginal automaton from  which  the examples were  created.  Figures  (b )-( d)  are  the \nintermediate automata built by the algorithm.  Edges  drawn with bold , dashed, and \ngrey  lines  correspond  to  transitions  with  the  symbols  '0',  '1',  and  the  terminating \nsymbol, respectively. \n\n5  Automatic segmentation of cursive  scripts \n\nSince  the  learning  algorithm of a  PAA  is  an  on-line  scheme,  only  a  small number \nof segmented  examples  is  needed  in  order  to  built  an  initial  model.  For  cursive \nhandwriting  we  manually  collected  and  segmented  about  10  examples,  for  each \nlower  case  cursive  letter ,  and  built  26  initial models.  At  this  stage  the  models  are \nsmall and  do  not  capture  the  full  variability of the  control  sequences.  Yet  this  set \nof initial automata was  sufficient  to  gradually  segment  cursive  scripts  into  letters \nand update the models from these segments.  Segmented words  with high  likelihood \nare  fed  back  into  the  learning  algorithm  and  the  models  are  further  refined.  The \nprocess  is  iterated  until all  the training data is  segmented  with  high  likelihood. \n\nThe  likelihood  of new  data  might  not  be  defined  due  the  incompleteness  of  the \nautomata,  hence  the  learning  algorithm is  again  applied  in  order  to  induce  prob(cid:173)\nabilities.  Let  Pi~j  be  the  probability  that  a  model  5  (which  represents  a  cursive \nletter)  generates  the  control  symbols  Si,  ... , Sj -1  (j >  i).  The  log-likelihood  of a \nproposed  segmentation (i1, i2 ,  ... , iN+d of a  word  5 1 ,52 ,  ... , 5N  is, \nN \nL ((i1, . . . , iN+1)1(51, ... , 5N) , (Sl, . . . , sL))  =  log(II Pi~~iJ+J = L log(Pi~~iJ+l) \n\nN \n\nj=l \n\nj=l \n\nThe segmentation is  calculated  efficiently  by  maintaining a  layers  graph  and  using \ndynamic  programming to  compute  recursively  the  most  likely  segmentation.  For(cid:173)\nmally, let  M L( n, k)  be  the  highest  likelihood  segmentation  of the  word  up  to  the \n\n\fDecoding Cursive Scripts \n\n839 \n\nn'th control symbol and the  k'th  letter  in the  word.  Then, \n\nM L(n, k)  = . ma~  {M L(i, k - 1) + log (Pi:~)} \n\ntk-l~t~n \n\nThe  best segmentation is  obtained  by  tracking  the most likely  path from  M(N, L) \nback  to M(l, 1) .  The result  of such  a  segmentation is  depicted  in  Fig.  3. \n\nFigure  3:  Temporal  segmentation  of the  word  impossible.  The  segmentation  is \nperformed  by  applying  the  automata  of  the  letters  contained  in  the  word,  and \nfinding  the  Maximum-Likelihood sequence  of models  via dynamic programming. \n\n6 \n\nInducing  probabilities for  unlabeled words \n\nUsing  this  scheme  we  automatically segmented  a  database  which  contained  about \n1200 frequent  english  words , by three  different  writers.  After  adding the segmented \nletters  to  the  training  set  the  resulting  automata were  general  enough,  yet  very \ncompact.  Thus  inducing  probabilities  and  recognition  of unlabeled  data  could  be \nperformed efficiently.  The probability of locating letters in certain locations in  new \nunlabeled  words  (i.e.  words  whose  transcription  is  not  given)  can  be  evaluated by \nthe  automata.  These  probabilities  are  calculated  by  applying  the  various  models \non  each  sub-string  of  the  control  sequence,  in  parallel.  Since  the  automata  can \naccommodate different  lengths of observations,  the log-likelihood should be divided \nby  the length  of the  sequence.  This  normalized log-likelihood is  an  approximation \nof the entropy induced by  the models, and measures the uncertainty in determining \nthe transcription of a word.  The score which  measures the uncertainty of the occur(cid:173)\nrence  of a  letter  S  in  place  n  in  the  a  word  is,  Score(nIS)  = maxI t 10g(P:'n+l_d. \nThe  result  of applying several  automata to  a  new  word  is  shown  in  Fig.  4.  High \nprobability  of a  given  automaton  indicates  a  beginning  of a  letter  with  the  cor(cid:173)\nresponding  model.  The  probabilities  for  the  letters  k,  a,  e,  b  are  plotted  top  to \nbottom.  The  correspondence  between  high  likelihood  points  and  the  relevant  lo(cid:173)\ncations  in  the  words  are  shown  with  dashed  lines.  These  locations  occur  near  the \n'true' occurrence  of the  letter  and indicate that these  probabilities  can  be  used  for \nrecognition  and  spotting of cursive  handwriting.  There  are  other  locations  where \nthe automata obtain high scores.  These correspond to words with high similarity to \nthe  model letter  and  can  be  resolved  by  higher  level  models,  similar to  techniques \nused  in speech. \n\n7  Conclusions  and future  research \n\nIn  this  paper  we  present  a  novel  stochastic  modeling  approach  for  the  analysis, \nspotting,  and  recognition of online  cursive  handwriting.  Our  scheme is  based  on  a \n\n\f840 \n\nSinger and Tishby \n\nFigure  4:  The  normalized  log-likelihood  scores  induced  by  the  automata for  the \nletters  k,  a,  e,  and b  (top  to  bottom).  Locations  with  high  score  are  marked with \ndashed  lines  and indicate  the  relative  positions of the letters  in  the word. \n\ndiscrete  dynamic representation  of the handwriting trajectory, followed  by  training \nadaptive  probabilistic  automata for  frequent  writing  sequences.  These  automata \nare  easy  to  train  and  provide  simple  adaptation  mechanism  with  sufficient  power \nto capture the  high variability of cursively written words .  Preliminary experiments \nshow that over 90% of the single letters are correctly identified and located, without \nany  additional  higher  level  language  model.  Methods  for  higher  level  statistical \nlanguage  models  are  also  being  investigated  [6],  and  will  be  incorporated  into  a \ncomplete recognition  system. \n\nAcknowledgments \n\nWe  would  like  to  thank  Dana  Ron  for  useful  discussions  and  Lee  Giles  for  providing  us \nwith  the  software  for  plotting  finite  state  machines.  Y.S.  would  like  to  thank  the  Clore \nfoundation  for  its support. \n\nReferences \n[1]  A.  Dempster,  N.  Laird,  and  D.  Rubin.  Maximum likelihood  estimation from \nincomplete data via the  EM  algorithm.  1.  Roy.  Statist.  Soc.,  39(B):1-38,  1977. \n\n[2]  J .M.  Hollerbach.  An  oscillation theory  of handwriting.  Bio.  Cyb.,  39,  1981. \n[3]  L.R.  Rabiner.  A tutorial on hidden markov models and selected  applications in \n\nspeech  recognition.  Proc.  IEEE,  pages  257-286,  Feb.  1989. \n\n[4]  J . Rissanen.  Modeling  by  shortest  data description.  Automaiica,  14,  1978. \n[5]  J.  Rissanen.  Stochastic  complexity and modeling.  Annals  of Stat.,  14(3),  1986. \n[6]  D.  Ron, Y.  Singer,  and  N.  Tishby.  The power of amnesia.  In  this  volume. \n[7]  D.E.  Rumelhart.  Theory  to practice:  a  case  study - recognizing  cursive  hand(cid:173)\n\nwriting.  In  Proc.  of 1992  NEC  Conf.  on  Computation  and  Cognition. \n\n[8]  Y.  Singer and  N.  Tishby.  Dynamical encoding of cursive  handwriting.  In  IEEE \n\nConference  on  Computer  Vision  and  Pattern  Recognition,  1993. \n\n[9]  Y.  Singer and N.  Tishby.  Dynamical encoding of cursive  handwriting.  Technical \n\nReport  CS93-4, The  Hebrew  University  of Jerusalem,  1993. \n\n\fPART VII \n\nIMPLEMENTATIONS \n\n\f\f", "award": [], "sourceid": 826, "authors": [{"given_name": "Yoram", "family_name": "Singer", "institution": null}, {"given_name": "Naftali", "family_name": "Tishby", "institution": null}]}