Primary sources: Difference between revisions

From FDHwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 3: Line 3:
traditionally used to recognized words character-by-character. However, in the
traditionally used to recognized words character-by-character. However, in the
case of offline handwritten text recognition, it does perform poorly. A more
case of offline handwritten text recognition, it does perform poorly. A more
adapted technology to this kind of document is Word Spotting <ref>Rath, T. M., &
adapted technology to this kind of document is Word Spotting,
first proposed in S. Madhvanath et al., (1996) <ref name="Manmatha1997">
Manmatha, R., Han, C., & Riseman, E. M. (1996, June). Word spotting: A new
approach to indexing handwriting. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
1996. Proceedings CVPR'96, 1996 IEEE Computer Society Conference on (pp.
631-637). IEEE. </ref>, this approach does not try to recognize a character/word,
but try to retrieve all instances of a user query (either a word either an
image) in a set of document images.
 
One particularly important use case of Word Spotting is in historical documents. <ref>Rath, T. M., &
Manmatha, R. (2007). Word spotting for historical documents. International
Manmatha, R. (2007). Word spotting for historical documents. International
Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition, 9(2), 139-152.</ref>. This
Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition, 9(2), 139-152.</ref> <ref name="Giotis2017">Giotis, A. P., Sfikas, G., Gatos, B., & Nikou, C. (2017). A survey of
technique does not try to directly recognize the words, but it characterizes
document image word spotting techniques. Pattern Recognition, 68,
them by their shape. Then a user can query either a word either an example (an
310-332.</ref>
image) and the system will return all matching occurrences.


The current best results for Word Spotting using strings as queries are obtained
There is three main characteristics that constrain Word Spotting methods<ref name="Giotis2017"/>:
using Neural Networks. However in order to obtain good results, they require a
# The need for segmentation, which can be by word, by line or free. This can lead to additional errors if poorly done, thus some have tried to achieve a segmentation-free method cf. Leydier et Al. (2007)<ref> Leydier, Y., Lebourgeois, F., & Emptoz, H. (2007). Text search for medieval manuscript images. Pattern Recognition, 40(12), 3552-3567.</ref>.
learning set and a segmentation by word, which can also be source of errors
# The way of searching a word, either by string either by example. Search by example is more limited, since you first need to find it. Some methods have tried to allow for a search by string cf. Edwards et Al. (2005) <ref> Edwards, J., Teh, Y. W., Bock, R., Maire, M., Vesom, G., & Forsyth, D. A. (2005). Making latin manuscripts searchable using gHMM's. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 385-392).</ref>
<ref>Giotis, A. P., Sfikas, G., Gatos, B., & Nikou, C. (2017). A survey of
# Finally the need or not of a training set. I.e. the need for human annotated data. In most of the case, methods with a training set perform a lot better <ref name="Giotis2017"/>.
document image word spotting techniques. Pattern Recognition, 68,
Currently, the best performing methods are using a segmentation by word, a query by example and need a training set, they also make use of Neural Networks.<ref name="Giotis2017"/>
310-332.</ref>. Finally, new segmentation-free Word Spotting methods have
However, the most desirable characteristics would be to at least not need segmentation and being able to query by string, some new methods having these features have emerged and show promising results, c.f. Wilkinson et al. (2017)<ref>Wilkinson, T., Lindström, J., &
appeared and seem to show good results <ref>Wilkinson, T., Lindström, J., &
Brun, A. (2017). Neural Ctrl-F: Segmentation-free Query-by-String Word Spotting
Brun, A. (2017). Neural Ctrl-F: Segmentation-free Query-by-String Word Spotting
in Handwritten Manuscript Collections. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07645.</ref>.
in Handwritten Manuscript Collections. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07645.</ref>.

Revision as of 19:56, 6 November 2017

Bibliography and state of the art

When working with digitized documents, Optical Character Recognition (OCR) is traditionally used to recognized words character-by-character. However, in the case of offline handwritten text recognition, it does perform poorly. A more adapted technology to this kind of document is Word Spotting, first proposed in S. Madhvanath et al., (1996) [1], this approach does not try to recognize a character/word, but try to retrieve all instances of a user query (either a word either an image) in a set of document images.

One particularly important use case of Word Spotting is in historical documents. [2] [3]

There is three main characteristics that constrain Word Spotting methods[3]:

  1. The need for segmentation, which can be by word, by line or free. This can lead to additional errors if poorly done, thus some have tried to achieve a segmentation-free method cf. Leydier et Al. (2007)[4].
  2. The way of searching a word, either by string either by example. Search by example is more limited, since you first need to find it. Some methods have tried to allow for a search by string cf. Edwards et Al. (2005) [5]
  3. Finally the need or not of a training set. I.e. the need for human annotated data. In most of the case, methods with a training set perform a lot better [3].

Currently, the best performing methods are using a segmentation by word, a query by example and need a training set, they also make use of Neural Networks.[3] However, the most desirable characteristics would be to at least not need segmentation and being able to query by string, some new methods having these features have emerged and show promising results, c.f. Wilkinson et al. (2017)[6].

  1. Manmatha, R., Han, C., & Riseman, E. M. (1996, June). Word spotting: A new approach to indexing handwriting. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1996. Proceedings CVPR'96, 1996 IEEE Computer Society Conference on (pp. 631-637). IEEE.
  2. Rath, T. M., & Manmatha, R. (2007). Word spotting for historical documents. International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition, 9(2), 139-152.
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Giotis, A. P., Sfikas, G., Gatos, B., & Nikou, C. (2017). A survey of document image word spotting techniques. Pattern Recognition, 68, 310-332.
  4. Leydier, Y., Lebourgeois, F., & Emptoz, H. (2007). Text search for medieval manuscript images. Pattern Recognition, 40(12), 3552-3567.
  5. Edwards, J., Teh, Y. W., Bock, R., Maire, M., Vesom, G., & Forsyth, D. A. (2005). Making latin manuscripts searchable using gHMM's. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 385-392).
  6. Wilkinson, T., Lindström, J., & Brun, A. (2017). Neural Ctrl-F: Segmentation-free Query-by-String Word Spotting in Handwritten Manuscript Collections. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07645.

Methods

Performances