MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003072187 · doi:10.1117/12.874706

Automatic extraction of numeric strings in unconstrained handwritten document images

2010· article· en· W2003072187 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehdi Haji, Tien D. Bui, Ching Y. Suen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersMitacs
KeywordsComputer scienceMerge (version control)Optical character recognitionPruningPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceDocument processingSegmentationHandwriting recognitionProbabilistic logicAlgorithmFeature extractionImage (mathematics)Information retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numeric strings such as identification numbers carry vital pieces of information in documents. In this paper, we present a novel algorithm for automatic extraction of numeric strings in unconstrained handwritten document images. The algorithm has two main phases: pruning and verification. In the pruning phase, the algorithm first performs a new segment-merge procedure on each text line, and then using a new regularity measure, it prunes all sequences of characters that are unlikely to be numeric strings. The segment-merge procedure is composed of two modules: a new explicit character segmentation algorithm which is based on analysis of skeletal graphs and a merging algorithm which is based on graph partitioning. All the candidate sequences that pass the pruning phase are sent to a recognition-based verification phase for the final decision. The recognition is based on a coarse-to-fine approach using probabilistic RBF networks. We developed our algorithm for the processing of real-world documents where letters and digits may be connected or broken in a document. The effectiveness of the proposed approach is shown by extensive experiments done on a real-world database of 607 documents which contains handwritten, machine-printed and mixed documents with different types of layouts and levels of noise.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207