Fırat Kızılırmak’s research while affiliated with Sabancı University and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (5)


Automatic Transcription of Ottoman Documents Using Deep Learning
  • Chapter
  • Full-text available

October 2024

·

15 Reads

·

S. Dogan Akansu

·

Zeynep Tandogan

·

[...]

·

Download


Fig. 2 Our proposed deep learning network consisting of CNN-BiLSTM models as encoder and CTC as decoder.
Fig. 3 Original image along with the augmented samples. (a) Original image. (b) Images augmented by affine transform: first two lines are sheared, the last one is rotated. (c) Images applied elastic distortion and perspective transform from geometric conversions.
Fig. 4 Examples of synthetically generated handwriting line images.
Fig. 5 An example application of the scoring transcriptions. (a) Output of the original image is scored using the equation 1. The optical score is obtained from the deep learning network. The language model score is computed using the 4-gram language model. (b) and (c) shows the scoring steps of the transformed images. The output with the lowest final score is picked as the final output, which is the correct transcription of the handwriting.
Fig. 6 Cumulative character and word error rates obtained with the baseline model on the IAM dataset. (a) Illustrates cumulative character errors. Example: All the characters are predicted correctly in 42% of all the lines, which corresponds to 1226 line images; one or at most two characters are predicted incorrectly in 560 line images, which corresponds to 17% of all the lines (b) Displays cumulative word error rates following the same manner.

+8

CNN-BiLSTM model for English Handwriting Recognition: Comprehensive Evaluation on the IAM Dataset

November 2022

·

616 Reads

·

3 Citations

We present a CNN-BiLSTM system for the problem of offline English handwriting recognition, with extensive evaluations on the public IAM dataset, including the effects of model size, data augmentation and the lexicon. Our best model achieves 3.59% CER and 9.44% WER using CNN-BiLSTM network with CTC layer.Test time augmentation with rotation and shear transformations applied to the input image, is proposed to increase recognition of difficult cases and found to reduce the word error rate by 2.5% points. We also conduct an error analysis of our proposed method on IAM dataset, show hard cases of handwriting images and explore samples with erroneous labels. We provide our source code as public-domain, to foster further research to encourage scientific reproducibility.


Fig. 1 Examples to Ottoman Turkish Naskh documents; a-b) handwritten manuscripts, c-d) printed books.
Fig. 3 Sample lines from the dataset and their corresponding ground truths as Turkish transcriptions.
Recognition results from the WBS experiments on the test set.
Transcription of Ottoman Machine-Print Documents

November 2022

·

300 Reads

With the ever increasing speed of the digitization process, a large collection of Ottoman documents is accessible to researchers and the general public. But, the majority of the users interested in these documents can not read these documents unless they are transcripted to the modern Turkish script which use an extended version of the Latin alphabet. Manual transcription of such a massive amount of documents is beyond the capacity of human experts. As a solution, we propose an automatic recognition system for printed Ottoman documents which transcribes Ottoman texts directly to the modern Turkish script. We evaluated three decoding strategies including the Word Beam Search decoder that allows to use a recognition lexicon and n-gram statistics during the decoding phase. The system achieves 2.25% character error rate and 6.42% word error rate on a test set of 1.4K samples, using the test set transcriptions as the recognition lexicon. Using a general purpose, large lexicon of the Ottoman era (260K words and 77% test coverage), the performance is measured as 3.68% character error rate and 16.61% word error rate.