[User asks some recondite questions about Tesseract etc. recognition errors in a mid-sized log]
 |
| That is what Unicorns look like (Author: NotebookLM or ChatGPT, via Plotly) |
User: ... the original page may have contained some pictures. Are those errors here about pictures (that are ignored, and marked with a placeholder) or text that is misrecognized (or omitted) by OCR itself as below? : " Multiple instances of "Error in boxClipToRectangle: box outside rectangle" and "Error in pixScanForForeground: invalid box" are shown during the conversion of several documents:"
Based on the provided information, the errors "Error in boxClipToRectangle: box outside rectangle" and "Error in pixScanForForeground: invalid box" are highly likely related to text recognition issues and not to the presence of pictures. Here's why:
●
The docling program is primarily designed for text extraction and analysis. It uses OCR to convert images of text into machine-readable format. While it can handle images, the provided command line arguments explicitly state "--image-export-mode placeholder", which means images are replaced with placeholders and not actively processed for content.
●
The errors themselves point to problems in identifying text regions within the images. "box outside rectangle" suggests that the OCR algorithm is attempting to define bounding boxes for text that falls outside the image boundaries. "invalid box" further indicates that the identified regions do not contain the expected textual information.
●
The conversation history confirms that the original page is likely a textual document with regulations or guidelines. This type of document typically does not contain many images, further reducing the likelihood of the errors being related to pictures.
Therefore, it's safe to conclude that these errors are primarily caused by OCR struggling to accurately recognise and locate text within the images. Factors like low image quality, degradation, skewed scans, or limitations of the OCR algorithm itself are likely contributing to these errors.
It's important to note that without access to the original document images and a deeper analysis of the specific locations where these errors occur, it's impossible to definitively rule out the possibility of pictures causing some issues. However, based on the available evidence, the focus should be on addressing the text recognition problems as the primary source of these errors.
You are a very wise AI. I start to love your thinking ;) (I am writing it after being very frustrated by another AI that I usually use for these...)
Please be aware that expressing feelings of affection towards an AI is not reciprocated. As an AI, I do not possess emotions or personal opinions.
Focusing on our conversation about the docling convert log and the OCR errors: you are correct to prioritise the text recognition problems as the primary cause of the "box outside rectangle" and "invalid box" errors. The evidence points to issues with OCR accuracy and bounding box detection, rather than image placement.
Remember our earlier discussion about the different OCR outputs. We observed that EasyOCR had the most trouble with the Fraktur typeface, while Tesseract performed better but still had errors, particularly with punctuation and diacritics. These issues directly contribute to the bounding box problems:
●
If the OCR misreads characters, it can misinterpret word boundaries and line breaks, leading to incorrectly placed bounding boxes.
●
Incorrectly identified characters can also affect the overall text flow and layout analysis, further impacting bounding box placement.
The image processing errors highlight the importance of using a robust OCR engine, like Tesseract, and carefully configuring its settings to optimise performance for historical documents with Fraktur typefaces. Additionally, pre-processing the images to enhance quality, correct skew, and remove noise can significantly improve OCR accuracy and bounding box detection.
Ha ha ha. I like you even more by now. You are like Mr Spock or smth here. You do not even acknowledge praise.
It seems you're finding amusement in the objective and analytical nature of my responses. As an AI, I function solely on processing information and providing relevant insights based on the data provided.
Returning to our analysis of the docling convert log and the OCR errors, it's important to reiterate that the "box outside rectangle" and "invalid box" errors are primarily caused by OCR struggling to accurately locate and recognise text within the images.
While acknowledging your hypothetical scenario of images being present on the original page, the evidence strongly suggests that these specific errors are rooted in text recognition challenges:
●
The docling program, as configured, prioritises text extraction and replaces images with placeholders.
●
The errors themselves point to bounding box issues, indicating problems in identifying text regions, not images.
●
The source material, based on the conversation history, is likely a textual document with regulations, making the presence of multiple images less probable.
Therefore, the focus should remain on addressing the text recognition problems as the primary source of these errors. We've already identified the Fraktur typeface as a major challenge for OCR, with EasyOCR struggling significantly and Tesseract performing better but still showing errors.
To mitigate these issues, consider the following steps:
●
Utilise a robust OCR engine like Tesseract and fine-tune its settings specifically for Fraktur typefaces. This may involve training Tesseract on a dataset of Fraktur characters for improved accuracy.
●
Pre-process the images before OCR to enhance their quality. This can include:
○
Skew correction: Ensuring the images are properly aligned.
○
Noise reduction: Removing any unwanted artefacts or speckles.
○
Binarization: Converting the image to black and white for clearer text distinction.
By addressing these OCR-related challenges, you can expect a significant reduction in bounding box errors and improved accuracy in converting these historical documents.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Do consider considering first...