c_moscardi
Joined 15 years ago
Joined 15 years ago
"[per Treil, LADW is for] a student who, while not yet very familiar with abstract reasoning, is willing to study more rigorous mathematics than what is presented in a “cookbook style” calculus type course."
But yeah it's really attempting to introduce you to higher mathematics rather than get you comfortable doing linear algebra per se.
Like I said, I'm essentially continually prompting to refine the material. LLMs certainly continue to append, and never cut back. It just keeps spitting out additional content at me. So that's a bit annoying too. But I can basically get figure out what's going on with a few extra promps.
If youre curious what i've got so far... just be warned it is quite literally AI slop plus me continually prompting for clarification/cleanup etc. : https://github.com/cmoscardi/ai-for-ai
I pretty regularly work with social science researchers who have a need for something like this... will keep it in mind. For a bit we thought of setting something like this up within the Census Bureau, in fact. I have some stories about routing engines from my time there...
People from the federal civic tech nexus started them up over the past decade as they termed out of 18F, USDS, and PIF
The approach I share here (fine-tuning recent deep learning models) is the first one that's gotten me anything resembling high-quality OCR on these particular noisy historical documents. OCRing these has been something of a white whale for me for several years (except, a white whale that I have spent comparatively little time on).
At this point I think I am reasonably competent in OCR, but no expert... Curious for your thoughts.
1. I believe the IR jargon for getting a JSON of this form is Key Information Extraction (KIE). MS has an out-of-the-box model for this. I just tried the screenshot and it did a pretty good (but not perfect) job. It didn't get every form field, but most. MS sort-of has a flow for fine-tuning, but it really leaves a lot to be desired IMO. Curious if this would be "good enough" to satisfy the use case.
2. In terms of just OCR (i.e. getting the text/numeric strings correct), MS is known to be the best on typed text at the moment [1]. Handwriting is a different beast... but it looks like MS is doing a very good job there (and SOTA on handwriting is very good). In particular, it got all the numbers in that screenshot correct.
If you want to see the results from MS on the screenshot in this blog post, here's the entire JSON blob. A bit of a behemoth but the key/value stuff is in there: https://gist.github.com/cmoscardi/8c376094181451a49f0c62406e...
[1] https://mindee.github.io/doctr/latest/using_doctr/using_mode...
Using the models underlying a library like this, there's maybe room for fine-tuning as well if you have a set of documents with specific semantic boundaries that current approaches don't capture. (And you spend an hour drawing bounding boxes to make that happen).
5 minute deck: https://github.com/codingitforward/cdfdemoday2018/blob/maste...
Feel free to shoot me a message.
This confused me as well, since I've always used the normal central-limit-based confidence interval for binary outcomes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_proportion_confidence...
(I am no expert in the analytic underpinnings of the beta distribution or precisely how it is the conjugate prior to the binomial -- or, rigorously speaking, what conjugate prior means -- but the formula here lines up with his formula :P )
Currently working on making the US government work better and document digitization.
You can email me at [email protected] - always happy to talk!