MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293868248 · doi:10.1109/crv55824.2022.00026

Occluded Text Detection and Recognition in the Wild

2022· article· en· W4293868248 on OpenAlexafffund
Zobeir Raisi, John Zelek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsSpottingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceText recognitionText detectionRobustness (evolution)Convolutional neural networkDeep learningPattern recognition (psychology)Feature extractionSpeech recognitionNatural language processingComputer visionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of existing deep-learning scene text recognition-based methods fails significantly on occluded text instances or even partially occluded characters in a text due to their reliance on the visibility of the target characters in images. This failure is often due to features generated by the current architectures with limited robustness to occlusion, which opens the possibility of improving the feature extractors and/or the learning models to better handle these severe occlusions. In this paper, we first evaluate the performance of the current scene text detection, scene text recognition, and scene text spotting models using two publicly-available occlusion datasets: Occlusion Scene Text (OST) that is designed explicitly for scene text recognition, and we also prepare an Occluded Character-level using the Total-Text (OCTT) dataset for evaluating the scene text spotting and detection models. Then we utilize a very recent Transformer-based framework in deep learning, namely Masked Auto Encoder (MAE), as a backbone for scene text detection and recognition pipelines to mitigate the occlusion problem. The performance of our scene text recognition and end-to-end scene text spotting models improves by transfer learning on the pre-trained MAE backbone. For example, our recognition model witnessed a 4% word recognition accuracy on the OST dataset. Our end-to-end text spotting model achieved 68.5% F-measure performance outperforming the stat-of-the-art methods when equipped with an MAE backbone compared to a convolutional neural network (CNN) backbone on the OCTT dataset.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.009

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207