2011 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition 2011
DOI: 10.1109/icdar.2011.300
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The ICDAR 2011 Music Scores Competition: Staff Removal and Writer Identification

Abstract: In the last years, there has been a growing interest in the analysis of handwritten music scores. In this sense, our goal has been to foster the interest in the analysis of handwritten music scores by the proposal of two different competitions: Staff removal and Writer Identification. Both competitions have been tested on the CVC-MUSCIMA database: a groundtruth of handwritten music score images. This paper describes the competition details, including the dataset and groundtruth, the evaluation metrics, and a s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is important to note that some distortions such as interruption and thickness made the detection process very difficult in most of these methods and most images are rejected because of the lack of identification. The one which gets better results in most cases and also without rejecting any image is ISI01-HA and its total algorithm is mentioned in [1]. The comparison between our proposed method and ISI01-HA method is shown in table 1.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is important to note that some distortions such as interruption and thickness made the detection process very difficult in most of these methods and most images are rejected because of the lack of identification. The one which gets better results in most cases and also without rejecting any image is ISI01-HA and its total algorithm is mentioned in [1]. The comparison between our proposed method and ISI01-HA method is shown in table 1.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several types of methods suggested in music staff removal competition are explained in [1]. It is important to note that some distortions such as interruption and thickness made the detection process very difficult in most of these methods and most images are rejected because of the lack of identification.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of the excellent results obtained with oBIFs and sparse or collaborative classifiers -99.8% vs. 77%, the best reported result so far [10] -we proceed further to validate the system with different train/test partitions of CVCMUSCIMA. Thus, we consider splits with 1 training page per writer, up to 10 training pages, and the remaining pages being the testing pages.…”
Section: Writer Identificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For writer identification we use the recently introduced CVCMUSCIMA [10,11] dataset. This dataset has 50 writers and 20 music scores pages per ( Table 1).…”
Section: Writer Identificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We evaluate the proposed method on ICDAR 2011 dataset for music score removal competition [22]. This dataset consists of 1000 ideal handwritten music sheet images and these ideal images are distorted by 12 deformation models.…”
Section: Evaluation Of Staff Line Removalmentioning
confidence: 99%