MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6888871807 · doi:10.22111/ieco.2023.45650.1480

Investigation of Deep Learning Optimization Algorithms in Scene Text Detection

2023· article· en· W6888871807 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Pipeline (software)Deep learningText detectionObject detectionFocus (optics)Feature (linguistics)Stochastic gradient descent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scene text detection frameworks heavily rely on optimization methods for their successful operation. Choosing an appropriate optimizer is essential to performing recent scene text detection models. However, recent deep learning methods often employ various optimization algorithms and loss functions without explicitly explaining their selections. This paper presents a segmentation-based text detection pipeline capable of handling arbitrary-shaped text instances in wild images. We explore the effectiveness of well-known deep-learning optimizers to enhance the pipeline's capabilities. Additionally, we introduce a novel Segmentation-based Attention Module (SAM) that enables the model to capture long-range dependencies of multi-scale feature maps and focus more accurately on regions likely to contain text instances.The performance of the proposed architecture is extensively evaluated through ablation experiments, exploring the impact of different optimization algorithms and the introduced SAM block. Furthermore, we compare the final model against state-of-the-art scene text detection techniques on three publicly available benchmark datasets, namely ICDAR15, MSRA-TD500, and Total-Text. Our experimental results demonstrate that the focal loss combined with the Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) + Momentum optimizer with poly learning-rate policy achieves a more robust and generalized detection performance than other optimization strategies. Moreover, our utilized architecture, empowered by the proposed SAM block, significantly enhances the overall detection performance, achieving competitive H-mean detection scores while maintaining superior efficiency in terms of Frames Per Second (FPS) compared to recent techniques. Our findings shed light on the importance of selecting appropriate optimization strategies and demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed Segmentation-based Attention Module in scene text detection tasks.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.304 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207