Feature Representations for Scene Text Character Recognition: A Comparative Study

被引:38
作者
Yi, Chucai [1 ]
Yang, Xiaodong [2 ]
Tian, Yingli [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] CUNY, Grad Ctr, Dept Comp Sci, New York, NY 10016 USA
[2] CUNY, City Coll, Dept Elect Engn, New York, NY 10016 USA
来源
2013 12TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DOCUMENT ANALYSIS AND RECOGNITION (ICDAR) | 2013年
关键词
scene text character recognition; performance evaluation; text feature representation; feature descriptors; Global HOG; dictionary of visual words; coding-pooling;
D O I
10.1109/ICDAR.2013.185
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Recognizing text character from natural scene images is a challenging problem due to background interferences and multiple character patterns. Scene Text Character (STC) recognition, which generally includes feature representation to model character structure and multi-class classification to predict label and score of character class, mostly plays a significant role in word-level text recognition. The contribution of this paper is a complete performance evaluation of imagebased STC recognition, by comparing different sampling methods, feature descriptors, dictionary sizes, coding and pooling schemes, and SVM kernels. We systematically analyze the impact of each option in the feature representation and classification. The evaluation results on two datasets CHARS74K and ICDAR2003 demonstrate that Histogram of Oriented Gradient (HOG) descriptor, soft-assignment coding, max pooling, and Chi-Square Support Vector Machines (SVM) obtain the best performance among local sampling based feature representations. To improve STC recognition, we apply global sampling feature representation. We generate Global HOG (GHOG) by computing HOG descriptor from global sampling. GHOG enables better character structure modeling and obtains better performance than local sampling based feature representations. The GHOG also outperforms existing methods in the two benchmark datasets.
引用
收藏
页码:907 / 911
页数:5
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2010, COMP VIS ACCV AS C C
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2004, IJCV
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2012, CVPR
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2011, ICCV
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2011, ICCV
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2009, VISAPP
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2010, CVPR
[8]  
[Anonymous], 2003, ICDAR
[9]  
[Anonymous], ECCV
[10]  
Bay H., 2008, CVIU