2

Should I hyphenate the phrase "pedestrian detection algorithm" in the example sentence below? The algorithm is designed to detect pedestrians. However, I am worried that it could be misread as a pedestrian "detection algorithm", whereby the phrase "detection algorithm" is being modified by the adjective "pedestrian".

The pedestrian detection algorithm detects the humans in the ROI using two-step (LBP-AdaBoost and HOG-SVM) classifiers.

tchrist
  • 134,759
Robert Astle
  • 217
  • 2
    "I am worried that ..." Needless worry. Absence of hyphen does not create ambiguity here because the context is entirely clear. Use the hyphenated phrase where there's an eminent case of potential ambiguity unlike here. – Kris Jan 21 '15 at 07:21
  • 1
    @Kris: That's an answer, not a comment. – Nathan Tuggy Jan 21 '15 at 07:30

2 Answers2

1

Yes, you should. There is no real risk of introducing confusion or annoyance in the reader by including it, and some significant risk of leaving confusion if you leave it out. "Pedestrian-detection" sounds and reads smoothly enough.

I don't have Chicago Manual of Style on hand, but an answer to a more general question suggests that 6.39 applies, which would recommend hyphenation here.

Community
  • 1
Nathan Tuggy
  • 266
  • So "road-construction materials" and "witness-protection program" would also be okay? I tried to come up with a combination posing a risk of befuddling the reader similar to that posed by the sentence proposed by Robert, but couldn't find such a combination offhand. – CowperKettle Jan 21 '15 at 06:56
  • 1
    They'd be OK, yes, but per my comment on your answer, not really necessary. There's no benefit to speak of, and although the cost is minimal, that doesn't help much. Only a really persnickety editor would come down hard on that, though. – Nathan Tuggy Jan 21 '15 at 06:57
  • Nathan, that's an opinion, not an answer. – Kris Jan 21 '15 at 07:21
  • @Kris Hopefully this is now beyond a mere opinion. – Nathan Tuggy Jan 21 '15 at 07:40
  • "To the editors of CMoS: When you say her reply was thought provoking do you mean that it provoked thought or that someone else thought it was provocative? – Robusto" ibid :) – Kris Jan 21 '15 at 07:42
  • @Kris: In context, the comment is based on a faulty premise, since that's clearly exactly what 6.39 is trying to avoid. – Nathan Tuggy Jan 21 '15 at 07:44
  • English is generally sloppy about combining nouns, adjectives and verbs without marking their relationship: a water heater heats water but a gas heater heats using gas. I'm sure that an ambiguous 3-noun combo could be found, but for now, an adverb-participle-noun combo: fast declining service v. fast-declining service. It's a bit forced, I know, but it shows the purpose of the hyphen. – David Garner Jan 21 '15 at 09:43
  • @DavidGarner: Right. I think those are good examples of special cases where a common usage begins to warp what little generality English rules have. Here, though, "pedestrian-detection" is almost original and is certainly not common, so like fast-declining service, it would seem best to introduce it to readers with a bit of care in writing it out. – Nathan Tuggy Jan 21 '15 at 09:55
  • 1
    I heard an actually ambiguous example on the radio today when a DJ asked his colleagues, "What's the longest living creature in the world?" and they had to ask for clarification, since you can't [always] hear hyphens. – David Garner Jan 22 '15 at 18:06
  • PS. Should that have been "actually-ambiguous example"? – David Garner Jan 24 '15 at 11:16
  • @DavidGarner Probably not; it is rare that adverbs ending in -ly should be hyphenated with their following modifier. – tchrist May 15 '16 at 19:05
1

Just hyphenate it normally. "pedestrian-detection algorithm" since pedestrian-detection is the name of the algorithm.

Kyle Emmanuel
  • 183
  • 1
    sounds like circular logic to me. Nobody said the name of the algorith was "Pedestrian-Detection". In fact, if the name were to appear without the word "algorithm", a hyphen would be not only unnecessary, but out of place. – Brian Hitchcock Feb 02 '15 at 23:46