Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Rethinking Irregular Scene Text Recognition

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that rectification-based scene text recognition is limited more by training data than by architecture, and that a modified synthetic dataset with circular curved text lifts accuracy to 89.6% on CUTE-80 and 76.3% on…

desk verdict CurvedSynth is a solid, released data contribution that supports the curved-text gains; the 'bag of tricks' framing overreaches Table 5, but the paper deserves a serious referee after revision. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11834 v2 pith:QGPAZ62V submitted 2019-08-30 cs.CV cs.LGeess.IV

Shangbang Long , Yushuo Guan , Bingxuan Wang , Kaigui Bian , Cong Yao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LGeess.IV
keywords irregularscenetextrecognitioncurvedsyntheticdatagenerationrectificationthin-platesplinesquarizationICDAR2019challenge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that irregular scene text recognition is limited far more by the choice of training data than by the recognition model itself. It takes a standard rectification-based recognizer—one that warps an irregular text image into a horizontal strip before reading it—and shows that existing synthetic datasets, which contain almost no curved text, prevent the rectification module from ever learning to help. By modifying the text-rendering engine to place words on circular rather than parabolic trajectories, the authors create a training set called CurvedSynth, and when it is combined with the standard straight-text corpus, recognition accuracy reaches 89.6% on the curved benchmark CUTE-80 and 76.3% on Total-Text, surpassing the previous best published results by 6.3 and 14.7 percentage points. A sympathetic reader should care because the result suggests that a large part of curved-text recognition performance can be bought with better synthetic data rather than with new network designs.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. The first is a modified text-rendering module for the SynthText engine: instead of the engine's default settings, which almost always sample multi-line straight paragraphs, the module forces single-word rendering and randomly samples a radius so that characters are placed on a circle, producing the CurvedSynth dataset with roughly 10% strongly curved crops among its 7 million images. This data change is what unlocks the second mechanism, the rectification module—a Thin-Plate-Spline warping driven by a predicted 20-vertex control polygon, taken from the Aster architecture—which straightens curved text before an attentional sequence decoder reads it. A third supporting tweak, squarization, resizes the long side of each input to 256 pixels and pads the short side to a square, preserving aspect ratio and making random 90, 180, and 270 degree rotations during training possible; the paper reports that squarization's main value is that it enables this rotation trick.

What would settle it

Retrain the same recognizer on a version of CurvedSynth where the circular trajectories are replaced by the original parabolic trajectories while keeping the number of curved crops, fonts, and backgrounds identical, and compare accuracy on Total-Text; if the gap between the two training sets is much smaller than the gain the paper attributes to CurvedSynth, then the circular rendering protocol, not curved data in general, is the active ingredient. Alternatively, vary the sampled radius distribution, for example all tight curves versus all nearly straight, and observe whether Total-Text accuracy responds monotonically to curvature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the rectification layer of a scene text recognizer is only as good as the curvature statistics of its training data. When trained on SynthText and Synth90K, whose output is dominated by straight text, the rectification module improves curved-text accuracy by less than a percentage point; when the same model is trained on CurvedSynth—a version of SynthText in which about 10% of the generated crops follow circular trajectories—the rectification layer accounts for improvements of 3.2% on Total-Text and 1.8% on the ICDAR 2019 ArT validation set. The paper further reports that the fully trained model wins the ICDAR 2019 Arbitrary-Shaped Text Challenge (Latin script) with 74.3% accuracy on the held-out test set, and that its RectTotal experiment, obtained by rectifying Total-Text with the TextSnake detector using ground-truth geometry, indicates that a recognizer trained purely on straight text performs equally well once the text has been straightened upstream by detection.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that text rendered along synthetic circular trajectories with hand-set parameters is a faithful enough proxy for real-world curved text that models trained on CurvedSynth transfer to CUTE-80, Total-Text, and the ICDAR 2019 challenge; the paper does not measure that domain gap.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Training on curved synthetic data should replace training on straight-only corpora for every irregular-text benchmark, because the same rectification model improves by 6.3 points on CUTE-80 and 14.7 points on Total-Text without any architectural change.
  • The rectification layer's value is contingent on training-data curvature, so conclusions about whether rectification helps should be re-examined for models trained on datasets that contain few curved words.
  • If a detection stage can already output a geometrically rectified crop of the text, a recognizer trained on straight text alone can match more sophisticated curved-text recognizers, shifting design effort toward detection-recognition co-design.
  • The reported 74.3% held-out accuracy on the ICDAR 2019 challenge shows that the combination of CurvedSynth, squarization, random rotation, and a four-model ensemble transfers from synthetic training to a competition test set.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves open whether the circular-trajectory rendering itself, rather than curved text in general, is what drives the gain; a natural extension would be to generate curved text by sampling from a wider family of smooth curves, such as spirals or arbitrary splines, and measure whether accuracy on real curved images keeps rising.
  • The optimal 15% real-world data mixing ratio was chosen on a single validation split; one might expect it to depend on the size and domain of the target dataset, so the recipe may not transfer unchanged to benchmarks with very different image statistics.
  • The RectTotal result suggests a detector-centric route to irregular text recognition: if detectors can output accurate rectified crops, the need for curvature-specialised recognizers may largely disappear, potentially simplifying the whole pipeline even though the paper's own competition system still relies on a curved-aware recognizer.
  • Because CurvedSynth is generated from the same rendering engine as SynthText, it inherits font, background, and vocabulary biases; testing on real photographs of curved text with unusual fonts or heavy occlusion would clarify how much of the reported gain is curvature per se versus a generally larger and more diverse training corpus.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper is a technical report on the ICDAR 2019 Arbitrary-Shaped Text (Latin) recognition track. It presents a set of techniques for rectification-based scene text recognition: (1) CurvedSynth, a modified SynthText engine that generates more curved text; (2) squarization preprocessing plus random rotation; (3) rectification on images; and (4) an ensemble system for the competition. The experiments show that training on CurvedSynth, especially when combined with Synth90K, improves accuracy on curved benchmarks such as CUTE80, Total-Text, and IC19-ArT. The paper also introduces RectTotal, a rectified version of Total-Text. The claimed headline results are 89.6% on CUTE80 and 76.3% on Total-Text, and a 74.3% accuracy in the ICDAR 2019 challenge.

Significance. If the data-side claims hold, CurvedSynth is a useful and economical training-data resource for irregular text recognition. The controlled comparison in Table 1, which holds the architecture fixed and varies only the training set, is a genuine strength and supports the conclusion that curved synthetic data are important. The release of the code and generated data samples is commendable and supports reproducibility. However, the paper's broader claim that the proposed 'bag of tricks' or their combination significantly improves performance is not supported by the ablations in Table 5, where the 'All' configuration is worse than the baseline on most datasets. The ICDAR competition result is obtained by an ensemble, but no ablation isolates the ensemble's contribution. The paper would be a solid contribution if reframed around the CurvedSynth study, but the current abstract and conclusions overstate the evidence for the model modifications and the combination claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.3 / Table 5] The 'All' row in Table 5, which combines Squarization, Random Rotation, and Rectify Image, is worse than the unmodified Rectification Baseline on eight of nine datasets (e.g., IIIT5K 94.2 vs. 94.8, SVT 88.1 vs. 89.6, IC13 92.0 vs. 92.8, Total-Text 76.1 vs. 76.3, IC19-ArT 72.0 vs. 72.1), with CUTE80 as the only exception (90.3 vs. 89.6). Section 4.3 itself concedes that 'rectification on images does not seem to be very effective.' This directly contradicts the abstract's claim that the bag of tricks 'significantly improve[s]' performance. The evidence instead shows that the combined model tweaks harm most benchmarks. Please either revise the central claim to state that only some tricks help in some configurations, or provide an ablation of the exact combination used in the competition system.
  2. [Section 5] The ICDAR 2019 result (74.3% on the held-out test set) is obtained by a four-model voting ensemble, but the paper reports only the individual validation accuracies (76.5% to 78.5%) and the ensemble's test accuracy. It does not report the ensemble's validation accuracy or the per-model test-set accuracies. Without a paired comparison of the ensemble against each of its members on the same held-out set (or at least on the 3000-image validation set), the 74.3% accuracy cannot be attributed to the proposed combination; it is possible that the strongest single model already achieves this level. The competition result is therefore not evidence for the combination claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1] The squarization preprocessing is not fully specified: after making the input square, the network is still described as taking 64x256 inputs, and the text does not explain how the aspect-ratio-preserving square is reshaped to 64x256 without reintroducing distortion. Please clarify the exact resizing and padding steps, or cite the relevant part of the released code.
  2. [Section 2.3 / Introduction] The paper claims to be 'the first to evaluate on Total-Text' (Section 1) and 'the first to report experiment results' for the latter two curved datasets (Section 2.3), yet Table 2 itself lists CA-FCN's Total-Text accuracy of 61.6% (marked with *). This internal inconsistency should be corrected.
  3. [Section 3.1.2] There are several typos: 'III5K' should be 'IIIT5K', and 'We would present some very interesting findings' should be 'We present...'.
  4. [Section 2.1] In the Recognition Module description, 'Bi-LSTM layers [8] layers' has a duplicated word 'layers'.
  5. [Section 3.1.1] The synthetic curve parameters are hand-set, and the paper does not provide any distributional analysis of the generated data (e.g., curvature or character-count histograms). Such an analysis would help assess coverage of the long tail of real curved text, though the downstream gains on real benchmarks already provide indirect evidence of transfer.
  6. [Section 5] The phrase 'validation accuracy from 76.5% and 78.5%' should read 'from 76.5% to 78.5%'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's claims are empirical benchmark measurements, not a derivation that re-uses its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain that could be circular. Section 2 defines a rectification baseline and a non-rectification baseline; Sections 3 and 4 report accuracy changes after changing the training data (CurvedSynth, SynthText, Synth90K) and after model tweaks (squarization, random rotation, rectification on images). These are direct empirical comparisons on public benchmarks, not quantities fitted to their own predictions. The CUTE-80 and Total-Text numbers in Table 2 are obtained by training on CurvedSynth + Synth90K and evaluating on held-out public test sets; no term in those numbers was constructed from the benchmark outputs. The ICDAR 2019 result in Section 5 is a held-out competition test-set number, and using the sampled validation set for model selection is standard tuning rather than a hidden fit. Self-citations are present but not load-bearing: TextSnake [21] is used to create the auxiliary RectTotal dataset, and the survey [20] is cited for a contextual number (IC03 94.5%). Neither supports the central recognition improvements. The paper explicitly concedes weak results in Section 4.3 ('rectification on images does not seem to be very effective'), and Table 5 shows the 'All' row underperforming the baseline on several datasets; this weakens the 'combination of tricks' narrative but is a correctness or interpretation issue, not circularity. Finally, the weakest assumption identified by the reader—that CurvedSynth is a faithful proxy for real curved text—is a domain-gap or generalization concern, not a circular reduction: the paper does not define CurvedSynth accuracy in terms of real benchmark accuracy. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no cited uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's empirical claims rest on hand-chosen synthetic generation settings and standard domain assumptions of deep-learning OCR (synthetic-to-real transfer, adequacy of TPS rectification, correctness of benchmark labels). The new artifacts, CurvedSynth and RectTotal, are datasets rather than postulated mechanisms, so no invented physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • CurvedSynth curvature sampling parameters = unspecified (modified from alpha in [-0.50,-0.45] U [0.50,0.55] to random radius)
    Section 3.1.1: the generation settings control the curvature and frequency of curved text (about 10% of crops). The paper does not specify the radius distribution or exactly how curvature was increased, making these hand-chosen parameters unavailable for exact reproduction.
  • Real-world data sampling ratio = 15%
    Section 3.2: during mixed training, real samples are upweighted so they form 15% of each batch; this ratio was selected by comparing 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% on a validation set. It is a trained hyperparameter of the final system.
  • Random rotation probability = 5% per 90-degree rotation
    Section 4.1.1: each image is rotated 90, 180, or 270 degrees with probability 5% each during training. Chosen without a supporting ablation.
  • Squarization padding scheme = grey padding, value not specified
    Section 4.1: images are resized so the long side is 256 pixels and padded to a square; the grey value used for padding is not given, which affects the visual input near the borders.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Synthetic text data transfers to real scene text images
    The evaluation protocol trains on Synth90K/CurvedSynth and tests on real photos, an established but unproven assumption in scene text recognition that the paper relies on for all reported numbers.
  • domain assumption TPS rectification with 20 control points is sufficient to normalize irregular text
    The baseline rectification module is adopted from Aster and its capacity is never validated separately; the paper assumes any gap between the rectification baseline and Non-Rect is properly supported by the TPS warping.
  • domain assumption The ground-truth labels of CUTE80, Total-Text, and IC19-ArT are assumed correct and complete
    All accuracies are computed against these labels. The paper itself notes that Total-Text polygon annotations are imprecise when constructing RectTotal, which calls into question the reliability of that derived benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rethinking Irregular Scene Text Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QGPAZ62V

@misc{pith2026190811834,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rethinking Irregular Scene Text Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QGPAZ62V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11834}
}
read the original abstract

Reading text from natural images is challenging due to the great variety in text font, color, size, complex background and etc.. The perspective distortion and non-linear spatial arrangement of characters make it further difficult. While rectification based method is intuitively grounded and has pushed the envelope by far, its potential is far from being well exploited. In this paper, we present a bag of tricks that prove to significantly improve the performance of rectification based method. On curved text dataset, our method achieves an accuracy of 89.6% on CUTE-80 and 76.3% on Total-Text, an improvement over previous state-of-the-art by 6.3% and 14.7% respectively. Furthermore, our combination of tricks helps us win the ICDAR 2019 Arbitrary-Shaped Text Challenge (Latin script), achieving an accuracy of 74.3% on the held-out test set. We release our code as well as data samples for further exploration at https://github.com/Jyouhou/ICDAR2019-ArT-Recognition-Alchemy

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11834 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The pipeline of our implementation. The module marked with dotted rectangles is the rectification module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Selected samples of RectTotal produced by applying TextSnake with ground truth geometry attributes. Note [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Randomly selected samples generated by our modified SynthText Engine. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Randomly selected results by rectification baseline from IC03 and IC13 trained with different training datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of rectification results for squarization compared with fixed resizing scheme. Within each dotted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Tactile: Giving Computer-Using Agents Hands and Feet

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Adding Tactile, an MCP tool layer that grounds agent actions in macOS accessibility semantics, OCR, and visual fallback, raised Codex Success@100 from 41.1% to 50.0% on macOSWorld-style tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Character region awareness for text detection

    Youngmin Baek, Bado Lee, Dongyoon Han, Sangdoo Yun, and Hwalsuk Lee. Character region awareness for text detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 9365–9374, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Focusing attention: Towards accurate text recognition in natural images

    Zhanzhan Cheng, Fan Bai, Yunlu Xu, Gang Zheng, Shiliang Pu, and Shuigeng Zhou. Focusing attention: Towards accurate text recognition in natural images. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 5086–5094. IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Total-text: A comprehensive dataset for scene text detection and recognition

    Chee Kheng Ch’ng and Chee Seng Chan. Total-text: A comprehensive dataset for scene text detection and recognition. In Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), 2017 14th IAPR International Conference on , volume 1, pages 935–942. IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Pixellink: Detecting scene text via instance segmentation

    Deng Dan, Liu Haifeng, Li Xuelong, and Cai Deng. Pixellink: Detecting scene text via instance segmentation. In Proceedings of AAAI, 2018, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Reading Scene Text with Attention Convolutional Sequence Modeling

    Yunze Gao, Yingying Chen, Jinqiao Wang, and Hanqing Lu. Reading scene text with attention convolutional sequence modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.04303, 2017. 10

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Synthetic data for text localisation in natural images

    Ankush Gupta, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman. Synthetic data for text localisation in natural images. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 2315–2324, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR) , 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Long short-term memory

    Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8):1735–1780, 1997

    1997

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Synthetic data and artificial neural networks for natural scene text recognition

    Max Jaderberg, Karen Simonyan, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman. Synthetic data and artificial neural networks for natural scene text recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.2227, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Spatial transformer networks

    Max Jaderberg, Karen Simonyan, Andrew Zisserman, et al. Spatial transformer networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 2017–2025, 2015

    2017

  3. [11]

    Icdar 2015 competition on robust reading

    Dimosthenis Karatzas, Lluis Gomez-Bigorda, Anguelos Nicolaou, Suman Ghosh, Andrew Bagdanov, Masakazu Iwamura, Jiri Matas, Lukas Neumann, Vijay Ramaseshan Chandrasekhar, Shijian Lu, et al. Icdar 2015 competition on robust reading. In Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), 2...

    2015

  4. [12]

    Icdar 2013 robust reading competition

    Dimosthenis Karatzas, Faisal Shafait, Seiichi Uchida, Masakazu Iwamura, Lluis Gomez i Bigorda, Sergi Robles Mestre, Joan Mas, David Fernandez Mota, Jon Almazan Almazan, and Lluis Pere de las Heras. Icdar 2013 robust reading competition. In Document Analysis and Recognition (IC...

    2013

  5. [13]

    Recursive recurrent nets with attention modeling for ocr in the wild

    Chen-Yu Lee and Simon Osindero. Recursive recurrent nets with attention modeling for ocr in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 2231–2239, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Show, attend and read: A simple and strong baseline for irregular text recognition

    Hui Li, Peng Wang, Chunhua Shen, and Guyu Zhang. Show, attend and read: A simple and strong baseline for irregular text recognition. AAAI, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Synthtext3d: Synthesizing scene text images from 3d virtual worlds

    Minghui Liao, Boyu Song, Minghang He, Shangbang Long, Cong Yao, and Xiang Bai. Synthtext3d: Synthesizing scene text images from 3d virtual worlds. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.06007, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Scene text recognition from two-dimensional perspective

    Minghui Liao, Jian Zhang, Zhaoyi Wan, Fengming Xie, Jiajun Liang, Pengyuan Lyu, Cong Yao, and Xiang Bai. Scene text recognition from two-dimensional perspective. AAAI, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Feature pyramid networks for object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Piotr Dollar, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, Bharath Hariharan, and Serge Belongie. Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , July 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Star-net: A spatial attention residue network for scene text recognition

    Wei Liu, Chaofeng Chen, Kwan-Yee K Wong, Zhizhong Su, and Junyu Han. Star-net: A spatial attention residue network for scene text recognition. In BMVC, volume 2, page 7, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation

    Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 3431–3440, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Scene text detection and recognition: The deep learning era

    Shangbang Long, Xin He, and Cong Ya. Scene text detection and recognition: The deep learning era. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04256, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Textsnake: A flexible representation for detecting text of arbitrary shapes

    Shangbang Long, Jiaqiang Ruan, Wenjie Zhang, Xin He, Wenhao Wu, and Cong Yao. Textsnake: A flexible representation for detecting text of arbitrary shapes. In In Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Icdar 2003 robust reading competitions

    Simon M Lucas, Alex Panaretos, Luis Sosa, Anthony Tang, Shirley Wong, and Robert Young. Icdar 2003 robust reading competitions. In null, page 682. IEEE, 2003

    2003

  15. [23]

    Scene text recognition using higher order language priors

    Anand Mishra, Karteek Alahari, and CV Jawahar. Scene text recognition using higher order language priors. In BMVC-British Machine Vision Conference. BMV A, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    Recognizing text with perspective distortion in natural scenes

    Trung Quy Phan, Palaiahnakote Shivakumara, Shangxuan Tian, and Chew Lim Tan. Recognizing text with perspective distortion in natural scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 569–576, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    A robust arbitrary text detection system for natural scene images

    Anhar Risnumawan, Palaiahankote Shivakumara, Chee Seng Chan, and Chew Lim Tan. A robust arbitrary text detection system for natural scene images. Expert Systems with Applications , 41(18):8027–8048, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Detecting oriented text in natural images by linking segments

    Baoguang Shi, Xiang Bai, and Serge Belongie. Detecting oriented text in natural images by linking segments. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , July 2017. 11

    2017

  19. [27]

    An end-to-end trainable neural network for image-based sequence recognition and its application to scene text recognition

    Baoguang Shi, Xiang Bai, and Cong Yao. An end-to-end trainable neural network for image-based sequence recognition and its application to scene text recognition. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 39(11):2298–2304, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Robust scene text recognition with automatic rectification

    Baoguang Shi, Xinggang Wang, Pengyuan Lyu, Cong Yao, and Xiang Bai. Robust scene text recognition with automatic rectification. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 4168–4176, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Aster: An attentional scene text recognizer with flexible rectification

    Baoguang Shi, Mingkun Yang, XingGang Wang, Pengyuan Lyu, Xiang Bai, and Cong Yao. Aster: An attentional scene text recognizer with flexible rectification. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 31(11):855–868, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Accurate scene text recognition based on recurrent neural network

    Bolan Su and Shijian Lu. Accurate scene text recognition based on recurrent neural network. In Asian Conference on Computer Vision, pages 35–48. Springer, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks

    Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 3104–3112, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    Learning shape-aware embedding for scene text detection

    Zhuotao Tian, Michelle Shu, Pengyuan Lyu, Ruiyu Li, Chao Zhou, Xiaoyong Shen, and Jiaya Jia. Learning shape-aware embedding for scene text detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4234–4243, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    End-to-end scene text recognition

    Kai Wang, Boris Babenko, and Serge Belongie. End-to-end scene text recognition. In Computer Vision (ICCV), 2011 IEEE International Conference on , pages 1457–1464. IEEE, 2011

    2011

  26. [34]

    Thin-plate splines and the decompositions of deformations

    Fred L Bookstein Principal Warps. Thin-plate splines and the decompositions of deformations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 11(6), 1989

    1989

  27. [35]

    Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention

    Kelvin Xu, Jimmy Ba, Ryan Kiros, Kyunghyun Cho, Aaron Courville, Ruslan Salakhudinov, Rich Zemel, and Yoshua Bengio. Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2048–2057, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    Scene text recognition with sliding convolutional character models

    Fei Yin, Yi-Chao Wu, Xu-Yao Zhang, and Cheng-Lin Liu. Scene text recognition with sliding convolutional character models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.01727, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Adadelta: an adaptive learning rate method

    Matthew D Zeiler. Adadelta: an adaptive learning rate method. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.5701, 2012

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Verisimilar image synthesis for accurate detection and recognition of texts in scenes

    Fangneng Zhan, Shijian Lu, and Chuhui Xue. Verisimilar image synthesis for accurate detection and recognition of texts in scenes. 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    EAST: An efficient and accurate scene text detector

    Xinyu Zhou, Cong Yao, He Wen, Yuzhi Wang, Shuchang Zhou, Weiran He, and Jiajun Liang. EAST: An efficient and accurate scene text detector. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , July 2017. 12

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.