The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A scale space approach for automatically segmenting words from historical handwritten documents
Abstract
Many libraries, museums, and other organizations contain large collections of handwritten historical documents, for example, the papers of early presidents like George Washington at the Library of Congress. The first step in providing recognition/ retrieval tools is to automatically segment handwritten pages into words. State of the art segmentation techniques like the gap metrics algorithm have been mostly developed and tested on highly constrained documents like bank checks and postal addresses. There has been little work on full handwritten pages and this work has usually involved testing on clean artificial documents created for the purpose of research. Historical manuscript images, on the other hand, contain a great deal of noise and are much more challenging. Here, a novel scale space algorithm for automatically segmenting handwritten (historical) documents into words is described. First, the page is cleaned to remove margins. This is followed by a gray-level projection profile algorithm for finding lines in images. Each line image is then filtered with an anisotropic Laplacian at several scales. This procedure produces blobs which correspond to portions of characters at small scales and to words at larger scales. Crucial to the algorithm is scale selection, that is, finding the optimum scale at which blobs correspond to words. This is done by finding the maximum over scale of the extent or area of the blobs. This scale maximum is estimated using three different approaches. The blobs recovered at the optimum scale are then bounded with a rectangular box to recover the words. A postprocessing filtering step is performed to eliminate boxes of unusual size which are unlikely to correspond to words. The approach is tested on a number of different data sets and it is shown that, on 100 sampled documents from the George Washington corpus of handwritten document images, a total error rate of 17 percent is observed. The technique outperforms a state-of-the-art gap metrics word-segmentation algorithm on this collection.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Marr, D., & Hildreth, E. (1980) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1980.0020 · Cited by 6,510
Cited by
Word Spotting and Recognition with Embedded Attributes
Almazan, J., Gordo, A., Fornes, A., & Valveny, E. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2014.2339814 · Cited by 517
Metadata
- Authors
- Manmatha, R., & Rothfeder, J. L.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
- Published
- 2005-08
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1212-1225
- ISSN
- 0162-8828 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2096497661
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A scale space approach for automatically segmenting words from historical handwritten documents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tpami.2005.150
- The paper
- Manmatha, R., & Rothfeder, J. L. (2005). A scale space approach for automatically segmenting words from historical handwritten documents. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpami.2005.150
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.