Text extraction from degraded document images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, a robust segmentation method for text extraction from the historical document images is presented. The method is based on Markovian-Bayesian clustering on local graphs on both pixel and regional scales. It consists of three steps. In the first step, an over-segmented map of the input image is created. The resulting map provides a rich and accurate semi-mosaic fragments. The map is processed in the second step, similar and adjoining sub-regions are merged together to form accurate text shapes. The output of the second step, which contains accurate shapes, is processed in the final step in which, using clustering with fixed number of classes, the segmentation will be obtained. The method employs significantly the local and spatial correlation and coherence on both the image and between the stroke parts, and therefore is very robust with respect to the degradation. The resulting segmented text is smooth, and weak connections and loops are preserved thanks to robust nature of the method. The output can be used in succeeding skeletonization processes which require preservation of the text topology for achieving high performance. The method is tested on real degraded document images with promising results.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".