Proceedings Eighth International Workshop on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition 2002
DOI: 10.1109/iwfhr.2002.1030915
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Handwritten document retrieval

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[2][3][4][5][6][7] Roughly, the existing methods for handwritten document retrieval can be divided into recognitionbased 2, 6 and recognition-free or word-spotting approaches 3, 4, 7, 8 (see Figure 1). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[2][3][4][5][6][7] Roughly, the existing methods for handwritten document retrieval can be divided into recognitionbased 2, 6 and recognition-free or word-spotting approaches 3, 4, 7, 8 (see Figure 1). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The primary solution to handle online handwritten data is to employ a HWR (handwriting recognizer) to convert the ink into text, and use the results to search and retrieve the documents [1,2]. However, this approach is suited only where the handwritten data is purely text and where a robust HWR is available for the language contained in the document.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In some cases, the words are searched after the documents have been recognized and several techniques have been proposed to make WS more robust with respect to recognition errors: Kwok et al (2000) convert each handwritten word into a stack of scores related to the dictionary entries. Russell et al (2002) use the N best recognizer outputs to expand the transcriptions and associate a probabilistic score to each term. In other cases, the recognition is avoided and WS is performed by matching query word images with the word images extracted from the documents (Jain and Namboodiri, 2003;Kolcz et al, 2000;Rath and Manmatha, 2003;Tomai et al, 2002;Uchiashi and Wilcox, 1999).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%