Learning Deep Representations for Word Spotting
Under Weak Supervision

arXiv:1712.00250v3 [] 26 Jan 2018

Neha Gurjar, Sebastian Sudholt, Gernot A. Fink
Department of Computer Science
TU Dortmund University
44221 Dortmund, Germany
Email: {neha.gurjar, sebastian.sudholt, gernot.fink}@tu-dortmund.de
Abstract—Convolutional Neural Networks have made their
mark in various fields of computer vision in recent years. They
have achieved state-of-the-art performance in the field of document analysis as well. However, CNNs require a large amount
of annotated training data and, hence, great manual effort. In
our approach, we introduce a method to drastically reduce the
manual annotation effort while retaining the high performance
of a CNN for word spotting in handwritten documents. The
model is learned with weak supervision using a combination of
synthetically generated training data and a small subset of the
training partition of the handwritten data set. We show that the
network achieves results highly competitive to the state-of-the-art
in word spotting with shorter training times and a fraction of
the annotation effort.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) achieve remarkable
results across a variety of different computer vision domains.
Most recently, they were also successfully introduced to the
field of document image analysis and word spotting in particular. The task in word spotting is to retrieve relevant parts
of a document image collection with respect to a query. Most
often, the query is either a document image itself (Query-byExample, QbE) or a textual representation (Query-by-String,
QbS).
The exceptional performance of CNNs often times comes
at the cost of having to supply a large amount of diverse,
annotated training samples. This is, of course, a characteristic
that is highly undesirable for word spotting systems. When
supplied with a new document image collection, this requires
the user to first perform tedious labeling work before being
able to perform word spotting. In some instances, this might
already solve the task of finding specific word images, which
would render the entire word spotting approach moot. In an
ideal scenario, a word spotting system requires little to no data
which had to be manually annotated by the user. However, this
is, of course, detrimental for the overall performance of the
CNN. If the annotated data at hand is only available in small
quantities, a common approach for other tasks is to finetune
a CNN previously trained on a larger data set. This of course
requires that the larger data set stems from the same domain as
the smaller data set that the CNN is supposed to be finetuned
to. For example, it can be expected that finetuning a CNN
trained for object detection to a word spotting benchmark does
not yield a competitive performance.

The finetuning approach, however, does not mitigate annotation efforts but rather shifts them: The larger data set still had
to be annotated at some point in time. It would be desirable
here to be able to generate an annotation for training with as
little human effort as possible.
In this work, we investigate the effects of training a CNN for
word spotting under weak supervision. Here, we define weak
supervision as having little manually annotated data and have
the CNN trained mainly on synthetically generated data. The
questions we focus on are: Can good word spotting results be
achieved by training a CNN on purely synthetically generated
data for both contemporary and historical documents? If not,
what is an adequate amount of word images that have to be
manually annotated to achieve competitive performance?
For evaluation purposes, we make use of the recently
introduced PHOCNet [1]. We conduct experiments for both
historic and contemporary document images.
First, we evaluate using purely synthetic images rendered
from Latin script fonts for training a CNN. Only the mapping
between textual character and visual character in the font
has to be established by a human and word images can be
generated unsupervisedly from there on.
Second, we evaluate using an increasing number of training
images from the respective data sets in conjunction with the
synthetic images. We define this approach as weak supervision
as the number of training images to be annotated by a human
is limited to a small amount.
We show empirically, that using 250 annotated word images
(roughly one page of a historical document) in conjunction
with a number of synthetically generated images is enough
for a deep CNN like the PHOCNet to be able to achieve
competitive results.
II. R ELATED W ORK
A. Word Spotting
Key Word Spotting or simply word spotting originally stems
from the field of audio and speech processing where it was
used to detect certain key words in an audio stream. Different
works focused on transferring the success of word spotting
to the handwritten domain. One of the earliest works in
this regard made use of XOR-maps and Euclidean Distance
Mapping in order to spot words in binarized handwritten

images [2]. Ensuing approaches often times focused on challenging historic documents. Here, methods were applied which
had proven successful in handwriting recognition. Especially
sequential models such as Dynamic Time Warping [3], Hidden Markov Models (HMM) [4], [5] and Long Short Term
Memory networks (LSTM) [6] were successfully applied to
word spotting.
Apart from the sequential models, methods from other fields
of computer vision found their way into word spotting as
well. Especially local image descriptors were applied to word
spotting problems quite frequently in the form of SIFT, e.g.
[7]–[9], or HOG-based descriptors [10]. While most often
local descriptors are pooled into either Bag-of-Features or
Spatial Pyramid representations, Bag-of-Feature HMMs [11],
[12] successfully combine local descriptors and sequential
models for word spotting.
The recent success of deep Convolutional Neural Networks
(CNN) in other fields of computer vision made researchers
investigate their use for word spotting as well. Combining
CNNs with attribute representations such as the Pyramidal
Histogram of Characters (PHOC) [13] achieves the current
state of the art in a number of word spotting applications [1],
[14]–[16].
B. Synthetic Training Data
In contrast to our focus of reducing manual annotation
efforts, early works on using synthetic data in document
image analysis were primarily motivated by increasing the
training data size of already existing data sets. This was
meant to improve classification performance in handwriting
recognition tasks [17], [18] or to supply data sets for new script
types for which obtaining document images and annotations
is difficult [19]. A detailed overview of different approaches
for synthesizing images from online-handwritten trajectories
as well as offline images is given in [20].
A straight forward approach for synthesizing training data
for a classifier is to use machine printed text. However, this approach only yields competitive performance if the printed and
handwritten script are similar. For example, Arabic machine
printed and handwritten characters are both of cursive nature
which allows for training a model from synthetically generated
training data. This concept was successfully demonstrated in
[21]. Here, the authors create a training set from various
rendered Arabic fonts. This training set is then used to train
an HMM which is adapted to handwritten text at test time in
an unsupervised manner.
In order to allow a classifier to be trained on Latin script
from machine printed text, [22] proposes the HW-SYNTH data
set. It features a large number of word images rendered from
handwritten-like Latin fonts. This very data set is used in [14]
in order to pre-train a CNN for word spotting. The resulting
CNN is then finetuned on other data sets. Word images are
then represented by deep features extracted from the CNN.
This approach differs from ours as it attempts to increase the
training data, similar to [17] and [18], instead of aiming at
reducing manual labeling costs.

III. M ETHOD
A. Learning With Weak Supervision
Unsupervised learning in the context of machine learning
implies that a method does not require any annotated training
data. Generating a Bag-of-Features representation [8], [9],
[13] is an example of unsupervised learning of features. On
the other hand, with supervised learning, a model is trained
with the help of labeled training data which typically has to
be supplied by a human. In the context of word spotting,
we define weak supervision as training with minimal manual annotation effort. The training process may still require
annotated data, however most training labels are generated
without any human interaction, e.g., by creating synthetic data
for which the labels are already available. A small amount
of annotated training data may still be required in order for
a system to achieve a desirable performance, which still has
to be supplied by a human annotator. However, the amount
of data to be annotated and the effort for computation is
limited substantially compared to supervised learning where
all training data has to be annotated. As a result, the human
effort and time taken in order to prepare the training data is,
also, reduced to a large extent.
The main problem with the weakly supervised approach
using synthetic data is the variability in real handwritten text
compared to synthetically generated text. This variability can
be classified into two types, namely, inter-class and intra-class
variation. Intra-class variation, in the context of word spotting,
may include the difference in the visual appearance of the
same word written by multiple authors due to different writing
styles. Unsupervised techniques are unable to differentiate
between these two types of variations of a data set. On the
other hand, supervised techniques are able to identify different
classes because of the annotated training labels. Hence, they
are inherently able to distinguish between inter-class and intraclass variation of the given data set. CNNs are quite capable
of adapting to a large intra-class variation or differentiating
between classes despite a small inter-class variation in the data
set. However, in order to differentiate between these two types
of variation, the CNN needs to be presented with a sufficient
amount of examples.
In our approach, we introduce a system which attempts
to retain the ability of the supervised techniques to adapt
to variation in text while keeping the amount of training
data low, and hence reducing the annotation effort. For this,
we make use of the HW-SYNTH data set [14] in order to
train a CNN with a vast amount of handwritten-like images.
We expect the vast amount of fonts used in this data set
to represent possible variabilities in handwritten text to a
reasonable degree. As CNN, we chose the recently published
PHOCNet [1] as it achieves state-of-the-art results in word
spotting and can be trained in an end-to-end fashion. We then
perform word spotting as is usually done with the PHOCNet
by computing attribute representations for a given word image
(in this case the PHOC) and performing retrieval through a
nearest neighbor search in the attribute space. For our system,

no manual annotation of words is required. However, it must
be noted that this is not an unsupervised approach in the
context of word spotting, since for synthetically generating the
word images, a mapping between machine readable characters
and rendered handwritten-like characters has to exist. We evaluate the performance of this trained model using handwritten
data sets. While our approach is capable of determining the
specific attribute representations for real handwritten words
to some extent, it faces limitations due to the difference in
styles between the synthetically generated and handwritten
word images as can be seen from the results.
In order to improve the performance of the model trained
only on the synthetic data, we evaluate a second approach,
namely finetuning the PHOCNet trained on synthetic data to
small amounts of real handwritten data. This allows the CNN
to adapt to the characteristics of the data set with minimal
annotation effort. A major advantage of finetuning is that the
amount of in-domain training data used to finetune a pretrained network is much smaller as compared to what would,
otherwise, be required to train the network from scratch.
It should be noted that the finetuning approach bares
similarities to the deep features approach presented in [14].
However, there is a distinct difference between the two which
is important to highlight: The deep features approach uses the
synthetic data in addition to the annotated training samples
and is simply there to enlarge the amount of data available for
training. In contrast, our approach uses few annotated samples
in addition to the synthetic data. We do not focus on enlarging
the training samples but rather reduce it as we wish to only use
as many annotated training samples as are absolutely necessary
in order to achieve competitive performance. This way, we
can evaluate how many annotated training samples are really
necessary for the PHOCNet if synthetic data such as the HWSYNTH data set is already available. We can thus empirically
find a lower boundary for which we expect the PHOCNet to
perform well on new data sets, too.
B. PHOCNet Architecture
In this section, we briefly revisit important aspects of the
CNN used in this work, namely the PHOCNet [1]. This
neural networks achieves state of the art results in a number
of word spotting benchmarks [16]. It does so by predicting
an attribute representation for a given word, namely the
Pyramidal Histogram of Characters (PHOC). This attribute
representation is then used in order to perform word spotting.
Effectively, it replaces the AttributeSVM in the embedded
attribute framework presented in [13]. While the PHOCNet’s
architecture is similar to the VGGnet [23], it exhibits a
number of design choices with the aim of performing well
specifically on word images. The first such choice is the use
of a Spatial Pyramid Pooling layer after the convolutional part.
First introduced in [24], it enables the network to be given an
input of varying size while still producing a representation
of constant size which can then be forwarded to the ensuing
fully connected layers. The output of the SPP layer with maxpooling consists of the maxima taken from local spatial bins

of the last feature map. The entire feature map is divided into
an increasing number of bins in subsequent steps for a fixed
number of steps. Since the bins have sizes proportional to the
input feature map, the number of bins, and hence the size of
the output of the SPP layer, is fixed despite a varying size of
input images.
Another important aspect is the output layer of the PHOCNet and its activation function. Training labels for CNNs in
recognition tasks are typically 1-hot vectors signifying the
target class of the input. However, the PHOCNet is tasked with
predicting an attribute representation where multiple elements
in can be 1. Hence, the last layer of the PHOCNet uses the sigmoid instead of the ubiquitous softmax as activation function
in the last fully connected layer. Training the PHOCNet with
the binary cross entropy loss allows for predicting an attribute
representation.
The PHOCNet employs a number of regularization techniques in order to avoid overfitting. A dropout of 0.5 is
applied during training in all but the last fully connected layers.
Additionally, the training images are augmented by computing
image transformations such as small shears, rotations and
slantings which could be expected for real word images as
well.
IV. E XPERIMENTS
A. Data sets
The HW-SYNTH data set is a collection of synthetically
generated word images [22]. For generating the word images
all 26 letters of the Latin alphabet and the numerals 0 to 9
were used. The data set consists of one million word images,
each belonging to one of 10,000 word classes obtained from
the Hunspell dictionary. The authors use a total of 100 publicly
available fonts for randomly generating each word image.
The images are rendered by varying the inter character space,
stroke width, and the mean foreground and background pixel
distributions. Subsequently, the images are smoothed using
Gaussian filtering. Every word class is rendered using all
letters in the lower case, all letters capitalized, and only the
first letter capitalized. The data partition used for training
consists of 750,000 images.
The first handwritten data set we use is the George Washington data set. It consists of 4860 words images. They are a part
of the 20-page document of correspondence between George
Washington and his associates. Since there exists no official
training and test partitions for this data set, we use the common
approach of performing a four fold cross validation using the
splits presented in [13]. The training and test partitions in all
four folds contain 3645 and 1215 images respectively. As the
documents in the George Washington data set are obtained
from the letterbook 2, which is not an original, but a later recopied volume, it can be assumed that the data set has been
produced by a single writer only.
The second handwritten data set is the Esposalles database.
It is a multi-writer data set consisting of 32,052 training
images and 13,048 test images. The database is an ancient
marriage license register written between 1451 and 1905.

C. Training Setup

Fig. 1. Top: Examples of random words in the HW-SYNTH data set. Bottom:
Examples of a single word from the HW-SYNTH data set showing a variation
in fonts and image rendering.

The third handwritten data set is the IAM Handwritten
Database written by 657 writers. It consists of 115,320 words
and we use the official partition for writer independent text
recognition. While the George Washington and Esposalles are
historic data sets, the IAM-DB is a contemporary one.

The initialization of parameters of a network plays a crucial
role in learning the model. The biases of the PHOCNet are
initialized to zero whereas the weights are randomly sampled
from a normal distribution with mean 0 and standard deviation
2
n [25]. Here, n is the number of parameters in the layer to
which the given parameter belongs. We use the exact same
meta-parameters for training as were presented in [1]: The
PHOCNet is trained using stochastic gradient descent with a
batch size of 10. The initial learning rate is set to 10−4 and is
divided by 10 after 70,000 iterations. The momentum is 0.9
and the weight decay is 5 · 10−5 . The second phase of training
uses the momentum vector from the previous training phase,
and a constant learning rate of 10−5 . The experiments are
carried out using a single Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 GPU.
The word images in the synthetic data set have a fixed size
of 48 × 128 pixels, whereas those in the handwritten data
sets have varying and often larger sizes (depending an the
resolution they were scanned with). In order to introduce a
suitable variation in image size to our model trained on purely
synthetic data, we scale the images in the synthetic data set
by a random factor within the interval [1, 2).
D. Results

B. Protocol
The PHOCNet is evaluated for QbE and QbS in the
segmentation-based case following the protocol in [13]. The
two scenarios we evaluate are training with no manually
annotated training data and another with a small amount of
annotated training samples. In both cases the PHOCNet is first
trained on the HW-SYNTH data set for 80,000 iterations. For
performing QbE in the scenario with no added training data,
we use each image in the test partitions of the handwritten
data sets as a query and predict attribute representations from
the CNN for both query and the remaining images which we
consider the corpus to run retrieval on. The word images from
the corpus are ranked according to the cosine distance of the
respective prediction from the PHOCNet and the predicted
query representation. We do not use words which appear
only once in the test set as queries, since there would be no
relevant retrieved image for that query. For QbS, all unique
transcriptions for words in the test set are extracted and their
PHOC representations are used as queries to rank all corpus
representations. For both QbE and QbS we make use of mean
Average Precision (mAP) as performance measure.
For the scenario with a limited amount of annotated training
data, we use subsets of the respective training partitions of the
data sets consisting of an absolute number of word images and
finetune the model for 40,000 iterations. In our experiments,
we use subsets containing 100, 250, 500, and 1000 word
images randomly drawn for each data set. These subsets are
augmented in order to increase the number of images using
the approach presented in [1]. The performance is evaluated
for QbE and QbS using the same protocol as above.

The percentage mAP scores for experiments run on the three
data sets are listed in Table I. Figure 2 shows the mAP scores
for all three data sets over the course of training using only
the synthetic data set. Here, especially the experiments run on
the Esposalles data set exhibit a strong overfitting behavior.
The mAP scores for finetuning the network on the respective
data sets are shown in Figure 3. Note that the results in Figure
3 show only the first 1000 iterations, whereas the results in
Table I have been obtained after 40,000 iterations.
E. Discussion
Several inferences can be drawn from our experiments.
Firstly, from our results in Table I, we observe that training
the PHOCNet on the HW-SYNTH data set (i.e. synthetic data)
only does not allow the CNN to perform better than common
unsupervised techniques [26]. However, after finetuning the
model, its performance for the historic data sets surpasses that
of the aforementioned unsupervised techniques using merely
100 images from the handwritten data set. Hence, we are able
to outperform unsupervised methods of learning with very
limited training data.
Secondly, we are able to reduce the training set size by 86%
for GW and almost 98% for IAM and still achieve results
competitive to those of an AttributeSVM [13].
The low amount of annotation effort that our method
demands can be, further, put into perspective. The ICFHR2016
Handwritten Keyword Spotting Competition [27] states that,
for practical applications of keyword spotting, annotating 40
pages of handwritten documents is not a significantly tedious
task and that even annotating 154 pages is affordable. With
our setup, we are able to drastically reduce this number even
further. For example, each page of the George Washington

TABLE I
R ESULTS FOR EXPERIMENTS WITH DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF TRAINING IMAGES IN M AP [%]
Method

Training
Subset Size

QbE

QbS

QbE

QbS

QbE

QbS

0
100
250
500
1000

39.89
83.05
90.76
93.86
95.74

48.92
86.69
92.39
94.82
96.59

26.21
38.45
43.78
52.41
55.39

36.57
56.47
60.90
68.33
74.09

34.92
89.67
94.06
95.14
96.27

10.30
71.15
82.43
85.42
89.18

complete
complete
complete
complete

93.04
96.71
94.41
98.00

91.29
92.64
92.84
93.69

55.73
72.51
84.24
81.58

73.72
82.97
91.58
89.49

−
97.24
−
−

−
93.29
−
−

proposed

mAP [%]

AttributeSVM [13]
PHOCNet [1]
Deep Features [14]
Triplet-CNN [15]

GW

IAM

Esposalles

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

GW
Esposalles
IAM

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

80 000

Training Iteration
Fig. 2.

QbE Mean Average Precision values for evaluating a PHOCNet trained on purely synthetic data on the three respective data sets.

Esposalles

mAP [%]

GW
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

IAM

100
250
500
1000

0

200

400

600

800 1 000 0

Training Iteration

100
250
500
1000

200

400

600

800 1 000 0

Training Iteration

100
250
500
1000

200

400

600

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

800 1 000

Training Iteration

Fig. 3. Mean Average Precision values for the three QbE finetuning experiments. The numbers in the legend indicate how many images were selected for
finetuning from the training images.

data set consists of approximately 250 words on an average.
This implies that, merely 4 pages must be annotated in order
to obtain high performance.
Another significant feature of our method is the low training
time. Although some time is required to train the model on
the synthetic data, this phase of training does only need to be
carried out once. In fact, if a model pre-trained on the synthetic
data is made available, the training time to be considered
for a practical application would be only that needed for
finetuning the model on the desired handwritten data set. From
Figure 3, it can be observed that the network learns the model
largely within the first 1000 iterations. The time required to
finetune the pre-trained model for 1000 iterations ranges from
approximately 7 to 11 minutes, depending on the data set used.
This means, that users of the presented system can fit the
PHOCNet to their data using only 1000 word images (about
four pages of manual annotation needed in the case of the
George Washington data set) in 11 minutes or less and obtain
competitive word spotting performance.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this work, we presented a system for word spotting using
CNNs under weak supervision. We showed empirically, that
our system is able to learn the characteristics of unseen handwritten data with minimal manual annotation efforts in a very
small time frame while achieving highly competitive results. It
is therefore ideally suited for integration into consumer word
spotting applications or as initialization for semi-supervised
approaches. In those applications, training times can be heavily
reduced while not sacrificing performance.
Another aspect of our work is that we were able to show
that the PHOCNet is able to achieve competitive performance
with highly limited real data, heavily relying on synthetically
generated data for training.
R EFERENCES
[1] S. Sudholt and G. A. Fink, “PHOCNet : A Deep Convolutional Neural
Network for Word Spotting in Handwritten Documents,” in Proc. of the
Int. Conf. on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition, 2016.
[2] R. Manmatha, C. Han, and E. Riseman, “Word Spotting: A New Approach to Indexing Handwriting,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Computer
Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1996,
pp. 1–29.
[3] T. M. Rath and R. Manmatha, “Word Spotting for Historical Documents,” International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition,
vol. 9, pp. 139–152, 2007.
[4] J. A. Rodrı́guez-Serrano and F. Perronnin, “Handwritten word-spotting
using hidden Markov models and universal vocabularies,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 2106–2116, 2009.
[5] A. Fischer, A. Keller, V. Frinken, and H. Bunke, “HMM-Based Word
Spotting in Handwritten Documents Using Subword Models,” in Proc.
of the Int. Conf. on Pattern Recognition, 2010, pp. 3416–3419.
[6] V. Frinken, A. Fischer, R. Manmatha, and H. Bunke, “A Novel Word
Spotting Method Based on Recurrent Neural Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 34, pp. 211–
224, 2012.
[7] M. Rusiñol, D. Aldavert, R. Toledo, and J. Lladós, “Browsing Heterogeneous Document Collections by a Segmentation-Free Word Spotting
Method,” in International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, Beijing, China, 2011, pp. 63–67.
[8] D. Aldavert, M. Rusinol, R. Toledo, and J. Llados, “Integrating Visual
and Textual Cues for Query-by-String Word Spotting,” in Proc. of the
Int. Conf. on Document Analysis and Recognition, 2013, pp. 511–515.

[9] M. Rusiñol, D. Aldavert, R. Toledo, and J. Lladós, “Efficient
segmentation-free keyword spotting in historical document collections,”
Pattern Recognition, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 545–555, 2015.
[10] J. Almazan, A. Fornes, and E. Valveny, “Deformable HOG-Based Shape
Descriptor,” in Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Document Analysis and
Recognition, 2013, pp. 1022–1026.
[11] L. Rothacker, M. Rusinol, and G. A. Fink, “Bag-of-Features HMMs
for Segmentation-Free Word Spotting in Handwritten Documents,” in
International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, 2013,
pp. 1305–1309.
[12] L. Rothacker and G. A. Fink, “Segmentation-free Query-by-String Word
Spotting with Bag-of-Features HMMs,” in International Conference on
Document Analysis and Recognition, Nancy, France, 2015, pp. 661–665.
[13] J. Almazán, A. Gordo, A. Fornés, and E. Valveny, “Word Spotting and
Recognition with Embedded Attributes,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern
Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 2552–2566, 2014.
[14] P. Krishnan, K. Dutta, and C. Jawahar, “Deep Feature Embedding for
Accurate Recognition and Retrieval of Handwritten Text,” in Proc. of the
Int. Conf. on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition, 2016, pp. 289–294.
[15] T. Wilkinson and A. Brun, “Semantic and Verbatim Word Spotting
using Deep Neural Networks,” in Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Frontiers in
Handwriting Recognition, 2016, pp. 307–312.
[16] S. Sudholt and G. A. Fink, “Evaluating Word String Embeddings and
Loss Functions for CNN-based Word Spotting,” in Proc. of the Int. Conf.
on Document Analysis and Recognition, 2017.
[17] T. Varga and H. Bunke, “Generation of Synthetic Training Data for
an HMM-based Handwriting Recognition System,” in Proceedings of
the International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition,
ICDAR, vol. 2003-Janua, 2003, pp. 618–622.
[18] ——, “Comparing Natural and Synthetic Training Data for Off-line Cursive Handwriting Recognition,” in International Workshop on Frontiers
in Handwriting Recognition, 2004, pp. 221–225.
[19] V. Märgner and M. Pechwitz, “Synthetic Data for Arabic OCR System
Development,” in International Conference on Document Analysis and
Recognition, 2001, pp. 1159–1163.
[20] Y. Elarian, I. Ahmad, S. Awaida, W. G. Al-Khatib, and A. Zidouri, “An
Arabic Handwriting Synthesis System,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 48,
no. 3, pp. 849–861, 2015.
[21] I. Ahmad and G. A. Fink, “Training an Arabic handwriting recognizer
without a handwritten training data set,” in 2015 13th International
Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR). IEEE,
aug 2015, pp. 476–480.
[22] P. Krishnan and C. Jawahar, “Matching Handwritten Document Images,”
in European Conference on Computer Vision, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
2016.
[23] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very Deep Convolutional Networks for
Large-Scale Image Recognition,” in Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Learning
Representations, 2015.
[24] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Spatial Pyramid Pooling in
Deep Convolutional Networks for Visual Recognition,” in Proc. of the
European Conference on Computer Vision, 2014, pp. 346–361.
[25] ——, “Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classification,” in Proc. of the Int. Conf. on
Computer Vision, 2015, pp. 1026–1034.
[26] S. Sudholt and G. A. Fink, “A Modified Isomap Approach to Manifold
Learning in Word Spotting,” in Proc. of the German Conference on
Pattern Recognition, 2015, pp. 529–539.
[27] I. Pratikakis, K. Zagoris, B. Gatos, J. Puigcerver, A. H. Toselli, and
E. Vidal, “ICFHR2016 Handwritten Keyword Spotting Competition (HKWS 2016),” in International Conference on Frontiers in Handwriting
Recognition, Shenzhen, China, 2016, pp. 613–618.

