Talk:MNIST database

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 12, 2013 Peer review Reviewed
Did You Know

Questions[edit]

  • Half of the training set and half of the test set were taken from NIST's training dataset, while the other halves were taken from NIST's testing dataset..... is that 4 halves? Surely quarters or rephrase
  • There have been a number of scientific papers attempting to achieve the lowest error rate.... what no computers? just papers?
  • SVM? This isn't a common abbreviation .... explain please?

Hope this is helpful Victuallers (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@Victuallers: The first sentence was rephrased. (Good catch...) SVM is wikilinked both places it appears in the article, but I changed it to be spelled out. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 11:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This is not for DYK.... I'm just curious. What are digits? I guess this is 0-9 but does it include 12.1 or 12,1 as the French would write it. Can it tell 9,123 which is a real number less than ten in France from 9,123 which is an integer over 9 thousand in England? Is the French 7 supported... and programmers who write a zero with a slash? You may not know much about this but a picture showing the variation in digits that this database holds would be intriguing... Victuallers (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It's just the digits 0 through 9. I'm trying to get a picture of the database from one of the gazillions of scientific papers about it; I'll probably add a picture soon. APerson (talk!) 22:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation about error rate of 0.27%[edit]

Tomash, I just undid your removal of a citation since I felt that the achievement of a lowest error rate was important information. APerson (talk!) 18:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@APerson:, there is another citation of a paper by the same authors two sentences ahead which states 0.23 error rate. So I removed the citation as it seemed to me that 0.27 was not the lowest error rate (0.27 > 0.23). Tomash (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Tomash: Reviewing the papers a lot more closely, it looks like the most recent paper (that is to say, the 2012 one) does not acknowledge the 2011 paper. While writing the article initially, I relied on the 2012 one for information and didn't look at the 2011 one until later, at which point I thought "Cool!" and stuck it in the lead. I'll move the 2011 paper down into the "Performance" section, since it did break the previous record in the literature at the time it was published. APerson (talk!) 01:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)