Proceedings of the 9th IAPR International Workshop on Document Analysis Systems 2010
DOI: 10.1145/1815330.1815345
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An open approach towards the benchmarking of table structure recognition systems

Abstract: Table spotting and structural analysis are just a small fraction of tasks relevant when speaking of table analysis. Today, quite a large number of different approaches facing these tasks have been described in literature or are available as part of commercial OCR systems that claim to deal with tables on the scanned documents and to treat them accordingly.However, the problem of detecting tables is not yet solved at all. Different approaches have different strengths and weak points. Some fail in certain situat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
89
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 88 publications
(89 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
89
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They can be used either to compute the loss and backpropagate through the function, or to predict the classes and form the resultant adjacency matrices. [37] defined a set of metrics for detailed evaluation of the results of table parsing and detection. They defined criteria for correct and partial detection and defined a heuristic for labeling elements as under-segmented, oversegmented and missed.…”
Section: ) Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They can be used either to compute the loss and backpropagate through the function, or to predict the classes and form the resultant adjacency matrices. [37] defined a set of metrics for detailed evaluation of the results of table parsing and detection. They defined criteria for correct and partial detection and defined a heuristic for labeling elements as under-segmented, oversegmented and missed.…”
Section: ) Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since our work is focused on table structure extraction rather than table detection, we cropped the tables from the images using UNLV ground truth files, resulting in 557 tables. We then evaluated our model's outputs against the ground truths provided in [21]. We did not use any image from the UNLV dataset in the training and validation process of our model and thus all the images were unseen by the model.…”
Section: F False Positive Detectionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Especially skewing is not supported. Evaluation is performed using the precision/recall model as defined by [24] (as correct and missed detection) with an overlap threshold of TH=0.50 (we tried various values, without any impact on the comparison). For this evaluation, both CRF and ECN were trained with the full dataset1.…”
Section: ) Table Row Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%