Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
(a) Brink and Pendock 1996 (b) Gatos et al. 2004 (c) Otsu 1979
Recall Precision
Algorithm Win.
Rate Odds multiplier Rate Odds multiplier
Brink and Pendock 1996 79.2 1.00 – 80.6 1.00 –
Pugin 2007 78.2 0.94 (0.89, 0.98) 79.5 0.92 (0.88, 0.97)
Gatos et al. 2004 21 76.4 0.84 (0.80, 0.88) 76.8 0.77 (0.74, 0.81)
Sezan 1985 76.4 0.84 (0.80, 0.88) 77.5 0.82 (0.78, 0.86)
Li and Lee 1993 75.9 0.82 (0.78, 0.86) 77.0 0.79 (0.76, 0.83)
Pikaz and Averbuch 1996 72.9 0.68 (0.65, 0.71) 74.1 0.67 (0.64, 0.70)
Mardia and Hainsworth 1988 72.1 0.66 (0.63, 0.69) 74.1 0.67 (0.64, 0.70)
Yanowitz and Bruckstein 1989 68.9 0.56 (0.53, 0.58) 68.9 0.51 (0.48, 0.53)
Bernsen 1986 17 67.0 0.51 (0.49, 0.53) 67.6 0.47 (0.45, 0.50)
Niblack 1986 31 66.7 0.50 (0.48, 0.52) 66.8 0.45 (0.43, 0.47)
Yanni and Horne 1994 63.3 0.42 (0.41, 0.44) 65.3 0.42 (0.41, 0.44)
Otsu 1979 62.7 0.41 (0.40, 0.43) 64.6 0.41 (0.39, 0.43)
Ridler and Calvard 1978 62.3 0.40 (0.39, 0.42) 64.2 0.40 (0.39, 0.42)
Lloyd 1985 60.2 0.37 (0.35, 0.38) 62.7 0.37 (0.36, 0.39)
Kittler and Illingworth 1986 58.2 0.34 (0.32, 0.35) 60.4 0.34 (0.32, 0.35)
Jawahar et al. 1997 57.3 0.32 (0.31, 0.34) 60.5 0.34 (0.33, 0.36)
Ramesh et al. 1995 56.0 0.31 (0.29, 0.32) 59.4 0.32 (0.31, 0.34)
Sauvola and Pietaksinen 2000 31 55.5 0.30 (0.29, 0.31) 58.4 0.30 (0.29, 0.32)
Shanbhag 1994 53.2 0.28 (0.27, 0.29) 60.9 0.36 (0.34, 0.37)
Kapur et al. 1985 43.4 0.18 (0.17, 0.19) 51.4 0.23 (0.22, 0.24)
Abutaleb 1989 39.9 0.15 (0.15, 0.16) 45.1 0.17 (0.17, 0.18)
Leung and Lam 1998 37.6 0.14 (0.13, 0.14) 53.0 0.24 (0.23, 0.25)
White and Rohrer 1983 15 36.5 0.13 (0.12, 0.14) 42.0 0.15 (0.14, 0.16)
Yen et al. 1995 23.7 0.07 (0.06, 0.07) 41.5 0.15 (0.14, 0.16)
Dunn et al. 1984 2.7 0.01 (0.01, 0.01) 13.2 0.03 (0.03, 0.03)
Table 1. Overall results. All window-based algorithms are evaluated at their best window size. In addition to general
recall and precision rates, more precise estimates of the odds multipliers and their 95% confidence intervals are given.
Figure 3. Recognition performance (recall) of Gatos et
al. 2004, the top-performing window-based local binari-
sation algorithm, on each of the books in the test set. Note
that there is no one optimal threshold.