Automatic extraction of numeric strings in unconstrained handwritten document images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".