Conference PaperPDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The paper presents a summary of the 1st Competition on Script Identification in the Wild (SIW 2021) organised in conjunction with 16th International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR 2021). The goal of SIW is to evaluate the limits of script identification approaches through a large scale in the wild database including 13 scripts (MDIW-13 dataset) and two different scenarios (hand-written and printed). The competition includes the evaluation over three different tasks depending of the nature of the data used for training and testing. Nineteen research groups registered for SIW 2021, out of which 6 teams from both academia and industry took part in the final round and submitted a total of 166 algorithms for scoring. Submissions included a wide variety of deep-learning solutions as well as approaches based on standard image processing techniques. The performance achieved by the participants prove the elevate accuracy of deep learning methods in comparison with traditional statistical approaches. The best approach obtained classification accuracies of 99% in all three tasks with experiments over more than 50K test samples. The results suggest that there is still room for improvements, specially over handwritten samples and specific scripts.
Content may be subject to copyright.
SIW 2021: ICDAR Competition on Script
Identification in the Wild
Abhijit Das1,2, Miguel A. Ferrer3, Aythami Morales4,
Moises Diaz5, Umapada Pal1, Donato Impedovo6, Hongliang Li7, Wentao
Yang7, Kensho Ota8, Tadahito Yao8Le Quang Hung9, Nguyen Quoc Cuong9,
Seungjae Kim10 , and Abdeljalil Gattal11
1Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata
2Thapar University, India
3Univ. de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
4Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain
5Universidad del Atl´antico Medio, Spain
6Universit`a degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro
7South China University of Technology, China
8Canon IT Solutions Inc., Japan
9University of Information Technology, Vietnan
10 NAVER Papago, Korea
11 Larbi Tebessi University, Argelia
Abstract. The paper presents a summary of the 1st Competition on
Script Identification in the Wild (SIW 2021) organised in conjunction
with 16th International Conference on Document Analysis and Recogni-
tion (ICDAR 2021). The goal of SIW is to evaluate the limits of script
identification approaches through a large scale in the wild database in-
cluding 13 scripts (MDIW-13 dataset) and two different scenarios (hand-
written and printed). The competition includes the evaluation over three
different tasks depending of the nature of the data used for training and
testing. Nineteen research groups registered for SIW 2021, out of which 6
teams from both academia and industry took part in the final round and
submitted a total of 166 algorithms for scoring. Submissions included
a wide variety of deep-learning solutions as well as approaches based
on standard image processing techniques. The performance achieved by
the participants prove the elevate accuracy of deep learning methods in
comparison with traditional statistical approaches. The best approach
obtained classification accuracies of 99% in all three tasks with experi-
ments over more than 50K test samples. The results suggest that there
is still room for improvements, specially over handwritten samples and
specific scripts.
Keywords: Handwritten and printed script identification ·wild ·deep
learning ·multi-script.
2 A. Das et al.
1 Introduction
Due to the ever-increasing demand for the creation of a digital world, many
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) algorithms have been developed over the
years [1]. Incidentally, script identification plays a vital role in OCR pipeline. It
use is also been used for several application such as signature verification [2,3],
[4], scene text detection [5], [6]. A script can be defined as the graphic form of
the writing system used to write a statement [7], [8].
The availability of large numbers of scripts makes the development of a uni-
versal OCR a challenging task. This is because the features needed for character
recognition are usually a function of structural script properties and of the num-
ber of possible classes or characters. The extremely high number of available
scripts makes the task quite daunting and sometimes deterring, and as a result,
most OCR systems are script-dependent [9]. The approach for handling docu-
ments in a multi-script environment is divided into two steps: first, the script of
the document, block, line or word is estimated, and secondly, the appropriate
OCR is used. This approach requires a script identifier and a bank of OCRs, at a
rate of one OCR per possible script. Many script identification algorithms have
been proposed in the literature. Script identification can be conducted either
offline, from scanned documents, or online, if the writing sequence is available
Identification can also be classified either as printed or handwritten, with
the latter being the more challenging. Script identification can be performed at
different levels: page or document, paragraph, block, line, word, and character.
As it is similar to any classical classification problem, the script identification
problem is a function of the number of possible classes or scripts to be detected.
Furthermore, any similarity in the structure of scripts represents an added chal-
lenge [7].
Hence, to elevate state-of-the-art several benchmarking effort by publishing
publicly available datasets [11, 12] and competition has been organised [13–17].
Consequently, the benchmarking works on script identification in the literature
uses different datasets with different script combinations . Therefore, it is dif-
ficult to carry out a fair comparison of these different approaches. Moreover,
the databases employed in related studies usually include two to four scripts. A
few actually include an even higher number of scripts but with not exhaustive
combination with both handwritten and printed samples with different level of
annotation (word, line and document).
Hence to alleviate this drawback, in this competition we aim to offer a
database for script identification, which consists of a wide variety of some the
most commonly used scripts, collected from real-life printed and handwritten
documents. The competition is also aim to document the recent development in
this area of research and attract the attention of the researchers. Specifically, we
aim to answer the following questions:
How do contemporary script identification techniques perform with large
scale challenging document images captured in the wild?
SIW 2021: ICDAR Competition on Script Identification in the Wild 3
What impact do changes in type of data (handwritten and printed) have on
identification performance?
The following contributions that are documented in this report:
A rigorous evaluation of several contemporary script identification approaches.
A comprehensive analysis of the identification approaches.
A public benchmark with more 80K images from 13 scripts obtained from
real handwritten and printed documents.
2 Benchmarking Dataset
We developed a large dataset for script identification tasks, consisting of printed
and handwriting documents of the following 13 scripts: Arabic, Bengali, Gu-
jarati, Gurmukhi, Devanagari, Japanese, Kannada, Malayalam, Oriya, Roman,
Tamil, Telugu, and Thai [18]. Figure 1 shows an example of words in each script.
The printed documents were collected from local newspapers and magazines,
whereas mostly native volunteers provided the handwritten. All documents were
scanned at 300 dpi of resolution. However, various conditions are included in the
databases, like different inks, sheets, font sizes, and styles. As a consequence,
controlled background removal and ink equalization was applied to ensure a
cleaner database. Furthermore, the word segmentation from the documents was
carried out by an automatic system, which was manually fine-tuned later by
checking all individual words.
This novel dataset has not shared at the time of the competition. In addition,
we only consider words extracted from the texts for this competition. Specifi-
cally, the word-based data was divided into Training and Testing sets for this
competition, as summarize Table 1.
Training. All registered participants in the competition had access to the
training data. The more than 30K training images were divided into two
main subsets with printed (21974) and handwritten (8887) images.
Testing. Once the deadline was reached, we shared the testing data with
the participants, which consisted of 55814 unlabelled images to identify in
the 13 scripts. The test set includes more than 50K handwritten and printed
images. The type of data (handwritten or printed) as well as the script label,
were not provided to the participant until the end of the competition.
As can be seen, the number of words is different in each script. It makes
the script identification an unbalance challenge with this benchmarking corpus.
Finally, the images within Training and Testing sets were not the same. They
were randomly extracted from the words available in the MDIW-13 multiscript
document database [19]. In other words, the data in this competition is a subset
of the large database. The database is publicly available12.
12 https://
4 A. Das et al.
Fig. 1. Example of image-based words used in the competition.
SIW 2021: ICDAR Competition on Script Identification in the Wild 5
Table 1. Summary of the word images included in each script for the Training and
Testing sets.
Script Training Testing
Printed Handwritten Printed Handwritten
Arabic 1996 570 4206 3370
Bengali 1608 401 949 8919
Gujarati 1229 144 982 37
Gurmukhi 3629 538 5475 135
Devanagari 1706 1203 1076 301
Japanese 1451 352 363 89
Kannada 1183 872 974 1123
Malayalam 2370 575 1950 144
Oriya 1660 333 649 7514
Roman 1574 558 6053 3750
Tamil 451 873 1667 557
Telugu 1261 640 865 161
Thai 1856 1828 1861 2644
Total 21974 8887 27070 28744
3 Evaluation protocol
SIW 2021 was executed in two stages. During the first stage participants were
given the training split of the MDIW-13 datset, including the ground truth and
were asked to develop their algorithm. In the second stage, the test split of the
MDIW-13 (without the annotation) was provided to the participants to infer
the script label on the test images.
The detailed tasks for the competition are as follows: 1) Task 1: Script iden-
tification in handwritten document; 2) Task 2: Script identification in printed
document; and 3) Task 3: Mixed script identification: Train and tested with
handwritten and printed.
The evaluation measure used during the competition was the Correct Clas-
sification Accuracy. This performance measure was calculated as the percent-
age of samples correctly classified respect the total number of samples available
for each of the tasks. Note that training and test sets present certain class im-
balance and the methods need to deal with this challenge.
Participants performed word level script recognition. The submission which
achieved the best Correct Classification Accuracy for Task 3 was considered as
the winner. The ground truth was manually annotated and segmented according
to a semiautomatic process described in [19].
4 Details of submitted approaches
Six different groups submitted their approaches for the final evaluation. The par-
ticipants include teams from academia and industry. Table 2 presents a summary
of the participating groups and their approaches. As can be seen, the proposed
6 A. Das et al.
Table 2. Summary of participants and submitted approaches to SIW 2021. The table
lists the abbreviations of the models, as used in the experimental section. PR = Pre-
trained models, EX = External data, HC = Hand-crafted features, AL = Detection and
alignment, EM = Ensemble models, DM = Differentiate models, Pre = Pre-processing,
post = Post-processing, X= Yes, x = No.
No. Group PR EX HF AL EM DM Pre Post
1 Ambilight X X xXx x X X
2 DLVC-Lab X X x x Xx x x
3 NAVER Papago Xx x x x x Xx
4 UIT MMlab Xx x x X X xX
5 CITS X X x x x x X X
6 Larbi Tebessi x x Xx x x x x
approaches show heterogeneous characteristics: with and without pre-processing
or post-processing techniques, ensemble or unique models, use of augmented
data. We proceed to present a summary of the best systems submitted by each
of the participants.
4.1 The Lab of Ambilight, NetEase Inc. (Ambilight)
This team used semantic segmentation method as our baseline model instead
of classification method. The semantic segmentation model is more focused on
the details of every character and can reduce the disturbances of background,
so the semantic segmentation model is better in this task. To fully utilize the
classification label, a multi-task training design is introduced to further improve
the performance of the segmentation task. Therefore, a classification branch is
added in our proposed framework. Also, to fit text geometric features better,
attention module and deformable convolution are added into the backbone. An-
other highlight of our approach lies in that we use lots of synthetic data and
grid distortion technique to simulate the handwriting style of different people,
which are finally proved valid tricks in this task. During testing phase, we apply
semi-supervised learning technique to fit the test data better. All these strategies
stated above make us achieve the top performance in the competition.
Introduction and Motivation: As stated above the challenges such as
variation in length of texts, ever-changing division, and similar letters even
characters existing in different scripts, hence an explicit solution is to design
a framework based on the fine-grained classification work. Currently, a popular
model of fine-grained classification is mainly based on the attention mechanism,
such as the WS-DAN[20] model (proposed by MARA in 2019), where it uses
the attention mechanism to crop the partial details of the image to assist the
classification. However, its attention mechanism is actually a weak supervision
mechanism. For detection-based models, they generally have to use stronger su-
pervision information. For example, for the Part-RCNN[21], the foreground is
first detected, and the detected foreground is scored with a discrimination de-
gree. More detailed supervision information is based on segmentation methods.
SIW 2021: ICDAR Competition on Script Identification in the Wild 7
Table 3. Some insight result on different architecture by team Ambilight.
Model Printed (mIoU) Handwritten (mIoU)
VGG19 0.9012(Acc) -
ResNet50-FCN 0.9590 0.8327
ResNest50-DeepLab3+ 0.9704 0.864
HRnet48-OCRnet 0.9732 0.8732
HRnet48-OCRnet+DCN 0.9795 0.8958
Swin-Transfromer 0.9654 0.8768
Fine-grained backgrounds are often complex and different, but the foregrounds
are very similar. If the foreground can be segmented for classification, better
performance will be achieved. Similarly, Mask-CNN[22] is a fine-grained classi-
fication model based on strongly supervised segmentation information, but due
to the high cost of labelling, it is rarely applied in the industry.
Although only the classification information is given in this competition, the
image only filled with black characters on a white background allows us to calcu-
late the mask required for segmentation directly through the pixel information.
Later, the participants compared different encoder and decoder combinations,
tried the classic VGG[23], Resnet[24] as the encoder, FCN[25], Deeplab3+[26] as
the decoder. Also tried the newly proposed Resnest[27], Swin-Transfromer[28],
etc.In the end, we combine the current SOTA backbone HRnet[29] and segmen-
tation decoder OCRnet[30] to solve this task. In addition, they also replace part
of the normal convolution in the encoder for DCN[31] convolution to play a role
of weak attention supervision. The following table demonstrates their compara-
tive study on different methods and backbones.
Detailed Method Description: (a) Since the training data is black on a
white background, the mask required for segmentation can be obtained according
to the pixel values. After attained the image mask, each pixel has supervision
information, and more local features can be extracted for very similar languages.
Here the participant use HRnet as the encoder to extract image features, and
then use OCRnet as the decoder for the output the segmentation results, and
determine the final output category according to the segmentation vote of each
pixel. In addition, they additionally designed an auxiliary classifier for training
to make the model also pay attention to the global features, and used DCN
v2 (Improved Deep Cross Network) convolution instead of 2D convolution to
strengthen the modeling ability of text shapes.
(b) Pseudo-label Fine-tuning [32]: The team use the trained model to
do inference on test set. If more than 70% of the pixels (foreground pixels) are
classified to be the same language, they assume that the predication is correct.
Samples that meet this condition will be allocated to the training set for fine-
tuning. In this way, iteratively fine-tune the model in multiple rounds.
(c) Synthetic Data and Data Augmentation: For the printed scripts,
they generate millions of synthetic data in different scripts and fonts using text
renderer, which can greatly expand the training data. Firstly, they use the syn-
8 A. Das et al.
thetic data to pre-train the model, and then use the given training set for fine-
tuning. For the handwritten scripts, they use grid distortion to simulate hand-
writing changes. This enhancement method can appropriately simulate non-rigid
deformations such as changes in the thickness and length of human strokes to
enhance the robustness of model for different handwriting.
(d) Loss Function: The team did a lot of experiments on the loss function,
and finally used focal loss [33] to increase the learning weight of the text part.
(e) Augmentation during Testing: They use random-crop-resize during
training, which plays a small-scale multi-scale role. Therefore, during the infer-
ence on the testing set, multi-scale resizing is performed on the intput image.
Results of different sizes are blended together to the final result.
4.2 South China University of Technology (DLCV-Lab)
The three tasks were treated as classification problems and were solved by adopt-
ing deep learning methods. In order to improve the diversity of training data,
the team utilized data augmentation technique [34] and synthesized a dataset
using fonts in different scripts. Finally, they ensemble three CNN-based models,
namely, ResNet-101 [24], ResNeSt-200 [27] and DenseNet-121 [35] with CBAM
[36] for better classification accuracy.
The first question they considered is whether they should adopt machine
learning methods or deep learning methods. In addition to more than 30,000
samples in the MDIW-13 database, they also use the collected fonts to generate
a synthetic dataset. With such a relatively large amount of data for training, they
thought that deep learning methods may outperform machine learning methods.
Among image processing methods in deep learning, Transformer-based models
has received lots of recent attention, while CNN-based models are still the main-
stream. In the absence of the massive training data required by transformer, they
believe CNN-based models may be more suitable. After determining the main
technical route, on one hand, we try various CNN-based models and ensem-
ble the best three models for better classification accuracy. On the other hand,
they collect some fonts for synthesizing data, and utilize the data augmentation
technique for text images to improve the diversity of the training data.
Synthesize Data: To synthesize data, fonts in 13 scripts are collected from
the Internet, and corpora are translated from 58,000 English words using the
Google translation API. Then they randomly select fonts and the translated
word corpora to generate 5,000 images for each script, which are added to the
training set.
Data Augmentation: The data augmentation technique they used [34]
embodies different transformations for text images, including distortion, stretch
and perspective. In the training phase, there is 50% probability for every sample
to execute each transformation.
Details of Model: After trying a variety of models, the team choose three
separately trained models, Resnet-101, Resnest-200 and Densenet-121 with CBAM
to ensemble. We use the Adam optimizer with a weight decay of 1e-4 and a learn-
ing rate of 1e-4. The learning rate is set manually to 1/10 of its current value
SIW 2021: ICDAR Competition on Script Identification in the Wild 9
when the loss value no longer drops. The cross-enropy loss function is adopted
and image resolution of input is set to 300×700. All three models are pre-trained
on ImageNet. It is worth noting that we did not use the synthetic data for Resnet-
101, as it will cause a worse result. Finally, the prediction confidences of the three
models are averaged as the output.
4.3 NAVER Papago (NAVER Papago)
Given the time constraint of the competition, the main strategy and motivation
was to fix the network and conduct quick experiments to conquer the problems
of the data. As many other real world problems do, the data had class imbalance
problem. Also, the images didn’t have rich pixel level information such as color,
contrast, but had much more spatial level information such as shape, font style.
To address these issues, first of all, the participant used stratfied data sampling
to overcome class imbalance. This helps the model fit to less-frequent-class im-
ages and boosts overall score. Secondly, many spatial level augmentations were
applied to make the model better recognize the newly seen text shapes in test
data. Augmentations such as random shift, scale, stretching, grid distortion were
applied, and in accordance, same augmentations were applied at test time which
also improved score. The network architecture was fixed to ResNet50 for all the
experiments above, and was changed to NFnet-f3 near the end of competition.
In conclusion, the overall approach was to leave most of the settings fixed and
concentrate on one or two most important issues of the competition.
Preprocessing: All images were rescaled, maintaing the width/height ratio,
and padded to have the same size 160x320.
Data split: 10% of each handwritten and printed data were used as vali-
dation set. They were sampled by stratified sampling, where the ratio of each
class in the sample remains the same as the ratio of each class in the whole data.
Then training data and validation data of both handwritten and printed data
were mixed, for training all at once.
Inference: 1) pseudo-labeling: test predictions that had confidence over 0.99
were pseudo-labeled and used to finetune model before inference; 2) test time
augmentation: test time augmentation with random scale, random horizontal,
vertical stretching was applied.
4.4 University of Information Technology (UIT MMLab)
Our approach is building a two-stage deep learning system for script identifica-
tion. In the first stage, we applied a residual neural network (ResNet) [37] to
classify the script as handwriting or print. In the second stage, for each type
of these we use our corresponding EfficientNet [38] model to identify the script.
For the best result on private test set, we used EfficientNet-B7 for handwritten
script and EfficientNet-B4 for printed script.
Handwritten/Printed type classification: A Resnet-50 architecture pre-
trained on ImageNet was used as backbone network. We stacked 1 fully connected
layer with 1024 units in front of the output layer. A sigmoid loss function was
10 A. Das et al.
used as binary classification. An Adam optimizer with learning rate of 0.0001
was used for the training process. The dataset was splitted with the ratio of 9/1
and then trained in 20 epochs with a batch size of 16. We saw that 20 epochs
are enough for the model to converge.
We trained separately 2 models with regard to 2 different random seeds in
train-validation step. It comes to my attention that one of these 2 models helps
to get higher score on printed task. The another model leads to higher score on
handwritten task. So, in the inference phase, the predicting result of 2 models
are compared with each other. The images that make their result different will be
considered manually by a visualizing tool. Following these steps, we can create
a quite significant handwritten-printed classification result.
Script identification: For script identification phase, we decided to use two
separate EfficientNet B4 and B7 models for handwritten and printed scripts. The
backbone network we used is a pretrained network previously trained on a large
ImageNet dataset contains 1000 classes labels, we can take advantage of pre-
trained weights to extract useful image features without retraining from scratch.
With transfer learning approach, we exclude the final fully connected (FC) layer
of pretrained model, then we replaced the top layer with custom layers contain-
ing FC layers for identify 13 languages of script allows using EfficientNet as a
feature extractor in a transfer learning workflow. The features is fed into global
average pooling (GAP) to generate a vector whose dimension is the depth of the
feature, this vector is the input of the next FC Layer. The GAP layer outputs
the mean of each feature map, this drops any remaining spatial information,
which is fine because there was not much spatial information left at that point.
The final FC layer 1×13 using softmax activation produces the probability of
each class ranged from 0 to 1.
Because freezing EfficientNet and training only custom top layers tends to
underfit the training data, training both EfficientNet and custom top layers
tends to overfit the training data, so the approach is freezing some first layers
of EfficientNet to make use of the low level features extracted by pretrained
network on ImageNet datasets, then training the remaining layers and top layers.
The team use Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.0001 to minimize the
categorical cross entropy loss function. For each type of script (handwritting and
print), They splitted the data into training set and validation set with the ratio
of 8/2. Then, they trained two base models i.e B4, B7, 250 epochs for each model
with a batch size of 16 and only save the best weight with the highest validation
4.5 Canon IT Solutions Inc. (CITS)
Firstly, the participants from this groups made patches by sliding window. Stride
was 56pixels13. Secondly, they classified each patch using a Efficient Net[39] as
a classifier.
13 56 is 224/4, and 224 is CNN’s default input width
SIW 2021: ICDAR Competition on Script Identification in the Wild 11
Lastly the participants calculated sum of confidence of each class of all
patches, and adopted the class corresponding to maximum argument as the
inference result.
For prepossessing, we used shave 20 pixels(up, bottom, left, right), resize
height to 224 keeping aspect ratio, normalization. The participants used Tesser-
act in post-processing for printed Hindi’s and Gurmukhi’s results.
There were 3 postprocessing steps: 1) trained a CNN model that classifies
images are printed or handwritten; 2) collected images which were classified
as printed Hindi or printed Gurmukhi; 3) OCR’ed each image in step 2 with
Tesseract of Hindi model and Gurmukhi model. Tesseract outputs confidence
score with OCR result, and we adopted script with higher confidence score.
The participants generated pseudo handwritten images with CycleGAN [40]
and used as a training dataset. This dataset contained 13,000 images(1,000 im-
ages for each class).
4.6 Larbi Tebessi University (Larbi Tebessi)
Among the different methods for research purposes, the texture-based descrip-
tor is preferred by many researchers due to its various advantages, strengths
and benefits. Proposed research method allows to extract highly informative
elements of the printed and handwritten text. Otherwise, they do not involve
comparing pieces of text like-for-like. In this way, the computational cost pro-
vides good insight into the complexity of the system compared to other systems.
However, the proposed research method also has their weak point that must be
considered which is sensitive to noise that makes the extracted features sensitive
to small changes in the handwriting. The textural information is captured using
an oriented Basic Image Feature (oBIF) columns.
In order to increase the performance of the oBIFs descriptor, the participants
combine oBIFs at two different scales to produce the oBIF column features by
ignoring the symmetry type flat. The oBIFs column features are generated using
different values of the scale parameter σwhile the parameter is fixed to 0.001.
The generated feature vector is finally normalized.
The oBIFs column histograms are extracted, the both oBIFs column his-
tograms for the scale parameter combination (2,4) and (2,8) are concatenated
together to form the feature vector representing each printed and handwritten
image. Once the features are extracted, classification is carried out using Support
Vector Machine (SVM) classifier. We have employed the Radial Basis Function
(RBF) kernel with the kernel parameter selected to 52 while the soft margin
parameter C is fixed to 10. The participants evaluated the oBIF column features
to identify scripts from printed and handwritten images on the dataset of the
ICDAR 2021 competition on Script Identification in the Wild (SIW 2021). The
experiment is carried out by using both printed and handwritten samples in the
training and test sets.
12 A. Das et al.
Table 4. Summary of final results for each of the three tasks. Correct classification
accuracy (final rank in brackets). The table presents two baseline methods: 1) the
Dense Multi-Block Linear Binary Pattern [19] and 2) the Random Chance. T.# Subm
= Total submissions
Group # Subm Task 1 (Handwritten) Task 2 (Printed) Task 3 (Mixed)
Ambilight 16 99.69% (1) 99.99% (1) 99.84% (1)
DLVC-Lab 43 97.80% (3) 99.80% (2) 98.87% (2)
NAVER Papago 26 99.14% (2) 95.06% (5) 97.17% (3)
UIT MMlab 46 95.85% (4) 98.63% (4) 97.09% (4)
CITS 34 90.59% (5) 99.24% (3) 94.79% (5)
Baseline [19] - 89.78% (-) 95.51% (-) 94.45% (-)
Larbi Tebessi 1 81.21% (6) 86.62% (6) 83.83% (6)
Random - 7.14% (-) 7.43% (-) 7.22% (-)
5 Benchmarking results with analysis and discussion
In this section we proceed to report and analysis the results obtained from
the submission. The Table 4 shows the final rank of the competition for the
three different tasks. The results are reported in terms of correct classification
accuracy. In order to compare the improvement provided by the competition
we released two benchmarking. Firstly, the random chance, which is around
7% for all three tasks. Further, we provided a second benchmark, i.e. the results
obtained using the Dense Multi-Block Linear Binary Pattern as per the reported
in [19].
We can observe from the Table 4 that the results of the participants ranged
from 83.83% to 99.84%. Most of the submission were based on CNN, and they
outperformed the baseline [19]. As it is expected, the handwritten task represent
a bigger challenge for the participants with accuracy’s lower than in the printed
scenario for most of the scenarios. Further, for the mixed task the accuracy’s
are someway between their printed and handwritten results. Incidentally, the
submission from Ambilight i.e. the winner team had a marginal difference of
.2% between printed and handwritten task. Also the gap is more less i.e. 0.06%
while considering mixed and printed.The reason behind this expected to be the
approach they chooses while solving this problem. They considered this problem
as a semantic segmenting task and which helps to give this leverage while finding
the details of the character.
We proceed to further analyse the system submitted by the winning team.
The Figure 2 shows the confusion matrix obtained by the winning approach
(Task 1: Handwritten script identification i.e the most challenging task). The
results show that there is room for improvement in some of the scripts, spe-
cially Gujarati, Telugu, Tamil, and Malayalam. Incidentally, Gujarati script were
mostly mis-classified as Bengali and Oriya, we assume that it is mostly due to the
writes writing style. As a fact Bengali and Oriya script do not have much similar
outlook to Gujarati. While considering Telugu the biggest mis-classification was
with Kannada script nearly 8.8%, it can be considered due to the visual simi-
SIW 2021: ICDAR Competition on Script Identification in the Wild 13
Ar Ba Gu Gur Hi Jap Kan Ma Or Ro Ta Te Th
Ar 99.97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ba 0 99.74 0 0.72 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.18 0 0 0
Gu 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11
Gur 0 0 0 97.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hi 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ja 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04
Ka 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0.70 0 0 0.17 8.87 0.26
Ma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98.59 0 0 0.53 0 0.04
Or 0 0.19 0 1.45 0 0 0 0 99.96 0.24 0.53 0 0
Ro 0.03 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99.55 0.17 0 0.07
Ta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98.24 0 0
Te 00.03 0 0 0 0 0 0.70 00.03 0.17 91.12 0.04
Th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 099.43
Fig. 2. Confusion Matrix (Task 1) obtained by the best method (Ambilight).
larity of the two script. This was the highest mis-classification and as a reason
Telugu script classification attend the lowest performance. Although it is inter-
esting to find that Kannada script had perfect classification. Similar to Kannada
and Telugu, Malayalam and Tamil script have high visual similarity, consider-
ing Tamil the highest mis-classification was with Malayalam script, but which
is not the case while considering Malayalam highest mis-classification was found
between Kannada and Telugu. Hence, we cannot conclude that visual pattern
and structure only responsible while considering script identification multi-script
Summarising the competition, from Fig. 3 we can conclude that the maxi-
mum correct classification accuracy obtained by all the participants during the
14 days is nearly 100%. The results obtained during the first week of the com-
petition represent a period where participants adapted their systems to the test
set. We can see a performance improvement from 91% to 97.4% during this
first week. The second week shows a constant improvement with a final correct
classification accuracy of 99.84%. In a competition with two weeks available for
submissions, we cannot discard certain overfitting to the test set. However, the
large number of samples (more than 50,000) and the different characteristics of
the tasks (handwritten vs printed) is a added challenge.
6 Conclusions
The 1st edition of the Script Identification in the Wild Competition was organ-
ised to evaluate and benchmark the performance of contemporary script identi-
fication techniques captured in the wild and explore the robustness of existing
models w.r.t. to changes in the font, size, ink and printing quality used for doc-
ument development and image acquisition as well as changes in the external
acquisition conditions. A total of 6 groups participated in the competition and
contributed 6 algorithm for the group evaluation. The identification algorithms
14 A. Das et al.
12345678910 11 12 13 14
Fig. 3. Maximum correct classification accuracy (Task 3) obtained by all the partici-
pants in each day of the competition.
were compared in terms of printed, handwritten and mixed documents. Most of
the submitted models ensured solid identification results in most experimental
scenarios. It is worth mentioning that for some the combination of script the
performance was slightly lower which requires further attention.
1. Line Eikvil. Optical character recognition. citeseer. ist. psu. edu/142042. html, 26,
2. Abhijit Das and et al.,. Multi-script versus single-script scenarios in automatic
off-line signature verification. IET biometrics, 5(4):305–313, 2016.
3. Abhijit Das and et al.,. Thai automatic signature verification system employing
textural features. IET Biometrics, 7(6):615–627, 2018.
4. M. A Ferrer and et al.,. Multiple training-one test methodology for handwritten
word-script identification. In 2014 14th International Conference on Frontiers in
Handwriting Recognition, pages 754–759. IEEE, 2014.
5. Hemmaphan Suwanwiwat and et al.,. Benchmarked multi-script thai scene text
dataset and its multi-class detection solution. Multimedia Tools and Applications,
80(8):11843–11863, 2021.
6. booktitle=2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition
(ICDAR) pages=987–992 year=2019 organization=IEEE Keserwani, P et al. Zero
shot learning based script identification in the wild.
7. Debashis Ghosh and et al.,. Script recognition—a review. IEEE Transactions on
pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 32(12):2142–2161, 2010.
8. A et al. Bhunia. Indic handwritten script identification using offline-online multi-
modal deep network. Information Fusion, 57:1–14, 2020.
9. Kurban Ubul and et al.,. Script identification of multi-script documents: a survey.
IEEE Access, 5:6546–6559, 2017.
10. Sk Md Obaidullah and et al.,. Handwritten indic script identification in multi-
script document images: A survey. IJPRAI, 32(10):1856012, 2018.
11. Sylvie Brunessaux and et al.,. The maurdor project: improving automatic process-
ing of digital documents. In DAS, pages 349–354. IEEE, 2014.
SIW 2021: ICDAR Competition on Script Identification in the Wild 15
12. Pawan Kumar Singh and et al.,. Benchmark databases of handwritten bangla-
roman and devanagari-roman mixed-script document images. Multimedia Tools
and Applications, 77(7):8441–8473, 2018.
13. Nabin Sharma and et al.,. Icdar2015 competition on video script identification
(cvsi 2015). In ICDAR, pages 1196–1200. IEEE, 2015.
14. booktitle=ICDAR pages=1582–1587 year=2019 organization=IEEE Nayef, Ni-
bal andet al.,. Icdar2019 robust reading challenge on multi-lingual scene text
detection and recognition—rrc-mlt-2019.
15. Nibal Nayef and et al.,. Icdar2017 robust reading challenge on multi-lingual scene
text detection and script identification-rrc-mlt. In ICDAR, volume 1, pages 1454–
1459. IEEE, 2017.
16. Deepak Kumar and et al.,. Multi-script robust reading competition in icdar 2013.
In 4th International Workshop on Multilingual OCR, pages 1–5, 2013.
17. Chawki Djeddi and et al.,. Icdar2015 competition on multi-script writer identifica-
tion and gender classification using ‘quwi’database. In ICDAR, pages 1191–1195.
IEEE, 2015.
18. Miguel A Ferrer; et al.,. MDIW-13 multiscript document database, 2019.
19. Miguel A andet al., Ferrer. Mdiw-13: New database and benchmark for script
20. al., Hu, T. See better before looking closer: Weakly supervised data augmentation
network for fine-grained visual classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.09891,
21. Ning Zhang and et al.,. Part-based r-cnns for fine-grained category detection. In
European conference on computer vision, pages 834–849. Springer, 2014.
22. al., Wei, X. Mask-cnn: Localizing parts and selecting descriptors for fine-grained
image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.06878, 2016.
23. Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for
large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014.
24. Kaiming He and et al.,. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In CVPR,
pages 770–778, 2016.
25. al., Long, J. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In CVPR,
pages 3431–3440, 2015.
26. al., Chen, L. Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic
image segmentation. In ECCV, pages 801–818, 2018.
27. Hang andet al., Zhang. ResNeSt: Split-attention networks. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2004.08955, 2020.
28. al., Liu, Z. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted win-
dows. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.14030, 2021.
29. al., Sun, K. Deep high-resolution representation learning for human pose estima-
tion. In CVPR, pages 5693–5703, 2019.
30. al., Yuan, Y. Object-contextual representations for semantic segmentation. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1909.11065, 2019.
31. al., Dai, J. Deformable convolutional networks. In CVPR, pages 764–773, 2017.
32. al., Lee, D . Pseudo-label: The simple and efficient semi-supervised learning method
for deep neural networks. In ICMLW, volume 3, 2013.
33. al., Lin, T. Focal loss for dense object detection. In CVPR, pages 2980–2988, 2017.
34. Canjie andet al., Luo. Learn to augment: Joint data augmentation and network
optimization for text recognition. In CVPR, pages 13746–13755, 2020.
35. G. Huang and et al.,. Densely connected convolutional networks. In CVPR, pages
2261–2269, 2017.
16 A. Das et al.
36. Sanghyun Woo and et al.,. Cbam: Convolutional block attention module. In ECCV,
pages 3–19, 2018.
37. et al., He, K. Deep residual learning for image recognition. pages 2980–2988, 2017.
38. Quoc Le. Mingxing Tan. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional
neural networks. pages 6105–6114, 2019.
39. Mingxing Tan and Quoc V. Le. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convo-
lutional neural networks. CoRR, abs/1905.11946, 2019.
40. Phillip Isola and et al.,. Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial
networks. In CVPR, 2017.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
Detecting text portion from scene images can be found to be one of the prevalent research topics. Text detection is considered challenging and non-interoperable since there could be multiple scripts in a scene image. blueEach of these scripts can have different properties, therefore, it is crucial to research the scene text detection based on the geographical location owing to different scripts. blueAs no work on large-scale multi-script Thai scene text detection is found in the literature, the work conducted in this study focuses on multi-script text that includes Thai, English (Roman), Chinese or Chinese-like
Full-text available
This study focuses on a comprehensive study of Automatic Signature Verification (ASV) for off-line Thai signatures; an investigation was carried out to characterise the challenges in Thai ASV and to baseline the performance of Thai ASV employing baseline features, being Local Binary Pattern, Local Directional Pattern, Local Binary and Directional Patterns combined (LBDP), and the baseline shape/feature-based hidden Markov model. As there was no publicly available Thai signature database found in the literature, the authors have developed and proposed a database considering real-world signatures from Thailand. The authors have also identified their latent challenges and characterised Thai signature-based ASV. The database consists of 5,400 signatures from 100 signers. Thai signatures could be bi-script in nature, considering the fact that a single signature can contain only Thai or Roman characters or contain both Roman and Thai, which poses an interesting challenge for script-independent SV. Therefore, along with the baseline experiments, the investigation on the influence and nature of bi-script ASV was also conducted. From the equal error rates and Bhattacharyya distance, the score achieved in the experiments indicate that the Thai SV scenario is a script-independent problem. The open research area on this subject of research has also been addressed.
In this paper, we study the context aggregation problem in semantic segmentation. Motivated by that the label of a pixel is the category of the object that the pixel belongs to, we present a simple yet effective approach, object-contextual representations, characterizing a pixel by exploiting the representation of the corresponding object class. First, we learn object regions under the supervision of the ground-truth segmentation. Second, we compute the object region representation by aggregating the representations of the pixels lying in the object region. Last, we compute the relation between each pixel and each object region, and augment the representation of each pixel with the object-contextual representation which is a weighted aggregation of all the object region representations. We empirically demonstrate our method achieves competitive performance on various benchmarks: Cityscapes, ADE20K, LIP, PASCAL-Context and COCO-Stuff. Our submission “HRNet + OCR + SegFix” achieves the \({1}^{\mathrm {st}}\) place on the Cityscapes leaderboard by the ECCV 2020 submission deadline. Code is available at: and
We propose Convolutional Block Attention Module (CBAM), a simple yet effective attention module for feed-forward convolutional neural networks. Given an intermediate feature map, our module sequentially infers attention maps along two separate dimensions, channel and spatial, then the attention maps are multiplied to the input feature map for adaptive feature refinement. Because CBAM is a lightweight and general module, it can be integrated into any CNN architectures seamlessly with negligible overheads and is end-to-end trainable along with base CNNs. We validate our CBAM through extensive experiments on ImageNet-1K, MS COCO detection, and VOC 2007 detection datasets. Our experiments show consistent improvements in classification and detection performances with various models, demonstrating the wide applicability of CBAM. The code and models will be publicly available.
Spatial pyramid pooling module or encode-decoder structure are used in deep neural networks for semantic segmentation task. The former networks are able to encode multi-scale contextual information by probing the incoming features with filters or pooling operations at multiple rates and multiple effective fields-of-view, while the latter networks can capture sharper object boundaries by gradually recovering the spatial information. In this work, we propose to combine the advantages from both methods. Specifically, our proposed model, DeepLabv3+, extends DeepLabv3 by adding a simple yet effective decoder module to refine the segmentation results especially along object boundaries. We further explore the Xception model and apply the depthwise separable convolution to both Atrous Spatial Pyramid Pooling and decoder modules, resulting in a faster and stronger encoder-decoder network. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed model on the PASCAL VOC 2012 semantic image segmentation dataset and achieve a performance of 89% on the test set without any post-processing. Our paper is accompanied with a publicly available reference implementation of the proposed models in Tensorflow.