2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.engappai.2019.103459
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cross multi-scale locally encoded gradient patterns for off-line text-independent writer identification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, when a paired T Test was performed between SRLDHD and SRLDSHD resulted in a P value of 0.0001, meaning that an extremely significant statistical difference exists. Finally, a paired T Test was conducted between SHD and 3QSHD and resulted in a P value of 0.0001, meaning that an extremely significant statistical difference exists here as well, but with the mean of [4] 63 Codebook of Graphemes combined with Edge-Hinge [16] 97 Edge-Hinge combinations [9] 81 Codebook of Graphemes combined with Edge-Hinge Combinations [9] 97 Contour-Hinge combined with Writer-Specific Grapheme Emission PDF [22] 83 SDS + SOH [24] 92.4 Quill-Hinge [11] 86 Junclets [8] 80.6 Junclets + Hinge [8] 89.8 BW-LBC [32] 94.4 CLGP [33] 97.6 *Dissimilarity GMM (DGMM) [37] 97.98 *GR-RNN [40] 98.8 6, an overview of the maximum accuracy achieved for all four techniques and results reported in the ICDAR 2017 writer identification competition for the MAP and Top-1 metrics. It is noticeable that there is a lot of room for improvement for both metrics.…”
Section: Icdar 2017 Writer Identification Competition Data Set Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Furthermore, when a paired T Test was performed between SRLDHD and SRLDSHD resulted in a P value of 0.0001, meaning that an extremely significant statistical difference exists. Finally, a paired T Test was conducted between SHD and 3QSHD and resulted in a P value of 0.0001, meaning that an extremely significant statistical difference exists here as well, but with the mean of [4] 63 Codebook of Graphemes combined with Edge-Hinge [16] 97 Edge-Hinge combinations [9] 81 Codebook of Graphemes combined with Edge-Hinge Combinations [9] 97 Contour-Hinge combined with Writer-Specific Grapheme Emission PDF [22] 83 SDS + SOH [24] 92.4 Quill-Hinge [11] 86 Junclets [8] 80.6 Junclets + Hinge [8] 89.8 BW-LBC [32] 94.4 CLGP [33] 97.6 *Dissimilarity GMM (DGMM) [37] 97.98 *GR-RNN [40] 98.8 6, an overview of the maximum accuracy achieved for all four techniques and results reported in the ICDAR 2017 writer identification competition for the MAP and Top-1 metrics. It is noticeable that there is a lot of room for improvement for both metrics.…”
Section: Icdar 2017 Writer Identification Competition Data Set Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chahi et al [33] proposed Cross multi-scale Locally encoded Gradient Patterns (CLGP). This new feature extraction technique that represents better salient local writing structure operates at connected component sub-images of the writing sample.…”
Section: Other Statistical and Model-based Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chahi et al in [30,31] proposed classic approaches emphasizing on extracting the desirable features. Authors in [30] proposed a Block Wise Local Binary Count (BW-LBC) operator stimulated by traditional LBP that characterizes multiple histograms.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They utilized the nearest-neighbor classification using the Hamming distance and presented that their approach is better than the modern approaches. For writer identification, the authors in [31], proposed another classical feature extraction method. Their descriptor illustrates a salient feature for local writing structure and is applied to small connected regions of the sample.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The features are broken down according to a set of criteria. The extraction features commonly used in devices for the identification of unique features are defined as follows [9]. Low level: image segmentation, tracking corner, detection of blob, feature extraction, scale-invariant transformation feature; curvature: active contours, parameterized shapes; image motion: image text extraction programs and tools, such as MathWorks, MATLAB, Scilab, and NumPy [10].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%