Query-by-example word spotting using multiscale features and classification in the space of representation differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Word spotting in document images is a challenging problem, due to the large intra-class variability in handwritten shapes and the lack of labeled data. To tackle these challenges, this paper proposes an efficient multiscale representation for word images, which is learned in an unsupervised manner using the spherical k-means algorithm. A pooling function is applied in a spatial grid to obtain a fixed-length vector of features, robust to small shifts in the image. Scale variability in handwritten data is also considered by using patches of various sizes in the encoding process. Another important contribution of this work is to model the training-based word spotting task as a classification problem in the space of representation differences, thereby allowing the learned model to find matches for word classes that were not seen in training. The proposed system is evaluated on the well-known George Washington (GW) dataset. Experimental results show that our system outperforms state-of-the-art word spotting approaches in both training-free and training-based scenarios.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".