Fused Text Segmentation Networks for
Multi-oriented Scene Text Detection
Yuchen Dai, Zheng Huang∗ , Yuting Gao, Youxuan Xu, Kai Chen, Jie Guo, Weidong Qiu

arXiv:1709.03272v3 [] 25 Dec 2017

School of Electronic Information and Electrical Engineering
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Shanghai, China

Abstract—In this paper, we introduce a novel end-end framework for multi-oriented scene text detection from an instanceaware semantic segmentation perspective. We present Fused
Text Segmentation Networks, which combine multi-level features
during the feature extracting as text instance may rely on finer
feature expression compared to general objects. It detects and
segments the text instance jointly and simultaneously, leveraging
merits from both semantic segmentation task and region proposal
based object detection task. Not involving any extra pipelines,
our approach surpasses the current state of the art on multioriented scene text detection benchmarks: ICDAR2015 Incidental
Scene Text and MSRA-TD500 reaching Hmean 84.1% and
82.0% respectively. Morever, we report a baseline on totaltext containing curved text which suggests effectiveness of the
proposed approach.

Incidental scene text localization[18] compared to horizontal
scene text detection benchmarks[33], [19].

I. I NTRODUCTION
Recently, scene text detection has drawn great attention
from computer vision and machine learning community.
Driven by many content-based image applications such as
photo translation and receipt content recognition, it has become a promising and challenging research area both in
academia and industry. Detecting text in natural images is
difficult, because both text and background may be complex in
the wild and it often suffers from disturbance such as occlusion
and uncontrollable lighting conditions[44].
Previous text detection methods[4], [7], [1], [36], [16] have
achieved promising results on several benchmarks. The essential problem in text detection is to represent text region using
discriminative features. Conventionally, hand-crafted features
are designed[7], [30], [39] to capture the properties of text
region such as texture and shape, while in the past few
years, deep learning based approaches[15], [17], [16], [8],
[41], [21] directly learn hierarchical features from training
data, demonstrating more accurate and efficient performance in
various benchmarks such as ICDAR series contests[33], [19],
[18].
Existing methods[17], [15], [16], [21] have obtained decent performance for detecting horizontal or near-horizontal
text. While horizontal text detection has constraints of axisaligned bounding-box ground truth, the multi-oriented text
is not restrictive to a particular orientation and usually uses
quadrilaterals for annotations. Therefore, it reports relatively
lower accuracies in ICDAR 2015 Competition Challenge 4
*Corresponding author: huang-zheng@sjtu.edu.cn

Fig. 1. FTSN Work Flows. From left to right, input images, text instance
segmentation results and final processed quadrilateral results are shown in
figure.

Recently, a few approaches[31], [13], [34], [43], [24],
[26] have been proposed to address the multi-oriented text
detection. In general, there are currently four different types
of methods. Region based methods[34], [26], [24] leverage advanced object detection techniques such as Faster RCNN[32]
and SSD[23]. Segmentation-based methods[42], [12] mainly
utilize fully convolutional neural networks (FCN) for generating text score maps, which often need several stages and
components to achieve final detections. Direct regression based
method[13] regresses the position and size of an object from a
given point. Finally, hybrid method[43] combines text scores
map and rotated/quadrangle bounding boxes generation to
collaboratively obtain the efficient and accurate performance
in multi-oriented text detection.
Inspired by recent advance of instance-aware semantic
segmentation[20], [10], we present a novel perspective to
handle the task of multi-oriented text detection. In this work,
we leverage the merits from accurate region proposal based
methods[32], and flexible segmentation based methods which
can easily generate arbitrary-shaped text mask[42], [12] . It
is an end-to-end trainable framework excluding redundant
and low-efficient pipelines such as the use of text/nontext
salient map[42] and text-line generation[12]. Based on region
proposal network (RPN), our approach detects and segments

Fig. 2. The proposed framework consists of three parts: feature extraction, feature fusion along with region proposing and text instance prediction. The
dashed line represents a convolution with 1x1 kernel size and 1024 output channels. The line in red is for upsampling operation and blue lines indicate on
which feature maps PSROIPooling are performed using given ROIs.

text instance simultaneously, followed by non-maximum suppression (NMS) to suppress overlapping instances. Finally, a
minimum quadrangle bounding box to fit each instance area
is generated as the result of the whole detection process.
Our main contributions are summarized as follows:
• We present an end-end efficient and trainable solution for
multi-oriented text detection from an instance aware segmentation perspective, excluding any redundant pipelines.
• During feature extraction, feature maps are composed in a
fused fashion to adaptively satisfy the finer representation
of text instance.
• Mask-NMS is introduced to improve the standard NMS
when facing heavily inclined or line-level text instances.
• Without many bells and whistles, our approach outperforms state of the art on current multi-oriented text
detection benchmarks.
II. R ELATED WORK
Detecting text in natural images has been widely studied
in past few years, motivated by many text-related real-world
applications such as photo OCR and blind navigation. One of
the mainstream traditional methods for scene text detection
are Connected Components (CCs) based methods[29], [37],
[17], [14], [28] , which consider text as a group of individual
components such as characters. Within these methods, stroke
width transform (SWT)[7], [14] and maximally stable extremal region (MSER)[27], [28], [30] are usually used to seek
character candidates. Finally, these candidates are combined
to obtain text objects. Although these bottom up approaches
may be accurate on some benchmarks[33], [19], they often
suffer from too many pipelines, which may cause inefficiency.

Another mainstream traditional methods are sliding window
based[4], [9], [17]. These methods often use a fixed-size or
multi-scale window to slide through the image searching the
region which most likely contains text. However, the process
of sliding window may involve large computational cost which
results in inefficiency. Generally, traditional methods often
require several steps to obtain final detections, and handdesigned features are usually used to represent properties of
text. Therefore, they may suffer from inefficiency and low
generalization ability against complex situations such as nonuniform illumination[40].
Recent progress on deep learning based approaches for
object detection and semantic segmentation has provided new
techniques for reading text in the wild, which can be also
seen as an instance of general object detection. Driven by
the advance of object detection frameworks such as Faster
RCNN[32] and SSD[23], these methods achieved state of the
art by either using a region proposal network to first classify
some text region proposals[26], [31], or directly regress text
bounding boxes coordinates from a set of default boxes[21],
[34]. These methods are able to achieve leading performance
on horizontal or multi-oriented scene text detection benchmarks. However, they may also be restricted to rectangular
bounding box constraints even with appropriate rotation[24].
Different from these methods, FCN based approaches generate
text/non-text map which classifies text at the pixel level[42].
Though it may be suited well for arbitrary shape of text in
natural images, it often involves several pipelines which leads
to inefficiency[42], [31].
Inspired by recent advance on instance-aware semantic
segmentation[20], [10], we present an end-end trainable frame-

work called Fused Text Segmentation Networks (FTSN) to
handle arbitrary-shape text detection with no extra pipelines
involved. It inherits merits from both object detection and
semantic segmentation architecture which efficiently detects
and segments an text instance simultaneously and accurately
gives predictions in the pixel level. As text may rely on finer
feature representation, a fused structure formed by multi-level
feature maps is set to fit this property.
III. M ETHODS
The proposed framework for multi-oriented scene text detection is diagrammed in Fig.2. It is a deep CNN model which
mainly consists of three parts. Feature representations of each
image are extracted through resnet-101 backbone[11], then
multi-level feature maps are fused as FusedMapA which is
fed to the region proposed network (RPN) for text region
of interest (ROI) generation and FusedMapB for later rois’
PSROIPooling. Finally the rois are sent to the detection,
segmentation and box regression branches to output text instances in pixel level along with their corresponding bounding
boxes. The post-processing part includes NMS and minimal
quadrilateral generation.
A. Network Architecture
The convolutional feature representation is designed in a
fusion fashion. The text instance is not like the general object
such as people and cars which have relatively strong semantics.
On the contrary, texts often vary tremendously in intra-class
geometries. Consequently, low-level features should be taken
into consideration. Basically, resnet-101 consists of five stages.
Before region proposing, stage3 and upsampled stage4 feature
maps are combined to form FusedMapA through elementwise adding, then upsampled feature maps from stage5 are
fused with FusedMapA to form FusedMapB. It is noted that
downsampling is not involved during stage5. Instead, we use
the hole algorithm[2], [25] to keep the feature stride and
maintain the receptive field. The reason for this is that both
text properties and the segmentation task may require finer
features and involving final downsampling may lose some
useful information.
Because using feature stride of stage3 may cause millions
of anchors in original RPN[32] which makes model training
hard, so we add a 3 × 3 with stride 2 convolution to reduce
such huge number of anchors.
Followed FCIS[20], we use Joint Mask Prediction and
Classification to simultaneously classify and mask the text
instance on 2 × (1 + 1) inside/outside score maps generated
through PSROIPooling on conv-cls-seg feature maps, and box
regression branch utilizes 4 × (1 + 1) feature maps from convbox after PSROIPooling (”1 + 1” means one class is for text
and the other for background). We use k = 7 shown in Fig.2 in
our experiments by default. It is noted that after PSROIPooling, the resolution of feature maps becomes 21×21. Therefore,
we use global average pooling[22] for classification (after
pixel-wise max) and box regression branches, and pixel-wise
softmax on mask branch.

Fig. 3. Ground truth. Left: original image. Right: corresponding ground
truth in which dashed lines are for bounding boxes and quadrilaterals filled
with different colors are for masks

B. Ground Truth and Loss Function
The whole multi-task loss L can be interpreted as
L = Lrpn + Lins

(1)

Lrpn = Lrcls + λr Lrbox

(2)

Lins = Lcls + λm Lmask + λb Lbox

(3)

The full loss L consists of two sub stage losses: RPN loss
Lrpn where Lrcls is for region proposal classification and
Lrbox is for box regression, and text instance loss Lins based
on each ROI, where Lcls , Lmask andLbox represent losses for
instance classification, mask and box regression task respectively. λ is the hyper-parameter to control the balance among
each loss term. They are set as λr = 0.2, λm = 2, λb = 0.2
in our experiments.
Classification and mask task both use cross-entropy as loss
function, whereas we use smooth-L1 for box regression task
formulated as

smoothL1 (x) =

0.5(σx)2
|x| − 0.5/σ 2

if |x| < 1/σ 2 ,
otherwise.

(4)

σ is set to 3 in our experiments which makes the box
regression loss less sensitive to outliers.
Ground truth of each text instance is presented by bounding
boxes and masks shown in Fig.3. In most multi-oriented text
detection dataset, annotations are given in quadrilaterals such
as IC15 or can be converted to quadrilaterals such as TD500.
For each instance, we directly generate mask from quadrilateral coordinates and use the minimal rectangle containing the
mask as the bounding box.
C. Post Processing
Mask-NMS To obtain final detection results, we use NonMaximum Suppression mechanism (NMS) to filter overlapped
text instances and preserve those with highest scores. After
NMS, we generate a minimum quadrilateral for each text
instance covering the mask as shown in Fig.1.
Standard NMS computes IOU among bounding boxes,
which may be fine for word-level and near-horizontal results’
filtering. However, it may filter some correct line-level detections when they are close and heavily inclined as shown in

Fig. 4. Heavily inclined text filtering results. Left: standard NMS may filter
the correct detection as shown in white dashed line. Middle: dashed lines in
yellow show the bounding boxes used in IOU computation of standard NMS,
and the yellow transparent area illustrates that the IOU between the two closed
inclined instance is big enough to make the correct detection filtered. Right:
Mask-NMS takes the mask area of each instance to compute MMI replacing
IOU. Therefore, there is no intersection between each instance.

Fig.4 or when words stay close in the same line as shown
in Fig.5. Consequently, we propose a modified NMS called
Mask-NMS to handle such situations. Mask-NMS mainly
changes bounding box IOU computation to so-called maskmaximum-intersection (MMI) as formulated:
M M I = max(I/IA , I/IB )

(5)

IA , IB are mask areas of two text instances to be computed,
I is the intersection area between the masks. Maximum
intersection over the mask areas are used to replace original
IOU for the reason that detections may easily involve line-level
and word-level text instances simultaneously at the same line
as shown in Fig.5. The proposed Mask-NMS has significantly
improved performance for multi-oriented scene text detection
as shown in section.5.

Fig. 5. line-level text NMS results. From left to right: ground truth,
standard NMS and Mask-NMS results. Benchmarks may provide annotations
at different levels such as word-level in IC15 and line-level in TD500.
However, model may be confused about them and make predictions at
different levels as shown in the middle. Using maximum intersection can
greatly avoid this situation as the MMI over the two text instances in the
middle image is 1 so one of them is certainly filtered.

and resolution lead to difficulty for text detection. Annotations
of the dataset are given in word-level quadrilaterals.
MSRA-TD500 (TD500) is early presented in [38]. The
dataset is multi-oriented and multi-lingual including both Chinese and English text which consists of 300 training and 200
testing images. Different from IC15, annotations of TD500 are
at line level which are rotated rectangles.
Total-Text is presented in ICDAR2017[5]. It consists of
1555 images with more than 3 different text orientations:
Horizontal, Multi-Oriented, and Curved.
SynthText in the Wild (SynthText) The dataset contains
800,000 synthetic images[8], text with random color, fonts,
scale and orientation are rendered on natural images carefully
to have a realistic look. Annotations are given in character,
word and line level.
B. Implementation Details
Training We pretrain the proposed FSTN on a subset of
SynthText containing 160,000 images, then finetune on IC15,
TD500 and Total-Text. For optimization, standard SGD is used
during training with learning rate 5 × 10−3 for first 5 epochs
and 5 × 10−4 for the last epoch,and we also apply online
hard example mining (OHEM)[35] for balancing the positive
and negative samples. Different from original RPN anchor
ratios and scales setting for object detection, anchor scales
of [322 , 642 , 1282 , 2562 ] and ratios of [1/3,1/2,1,2,3,5,7] are
set because text often has a large aspect ratio and a small
scale[21].
Data augmentation Multi-scale training, rotation and color
jittering are applied during training. Scales are randomly
chosen from [600,720,960,1100] and each number represents
the short edge of input images. Rotation with 15◦ ,30◦ and 45◦
are applied with horizontal flip. Consequently, it enlarges 8x
dataset size than the original one. Random brightness, contrast
and saturation jittering are applied for input images.
Testing Input images are resized to 848×1500 when testing.
After NMS, mask voting[6] is used to obtain an ensemble text
instance mask by averaging all reasonable detections.
Experiments are conducted on MXNet[3] and run on a
server with Intel i7 6700K CPU, 64GB RAM, GTX 1080 and
Ubuntu 14.04 OS.
TABLE I
ICDAR 2015 INCIDENTAL DATASET

IV. E XPERIMENTS
To evaluate the proposed framework, we conduct quantitative experiments on three public benchmarks: ICDAR2015,
MSRA-TD500 and Total-Text.
A. Datasets
ICDAR 2015 Incidental Text (IC15) the Challenge 4 of
ICDAR 2015 Robust Reading Competition[18]. IC15 contains
1000 training and 500 testing incidental images taken by
Google Glasses without paying attention to viewpoint and image quality. Therefore, large variations in text scale, orientation

Method
HUST[18]
Zhang et al.[42]
DMPNet[24]
Qin et al.[31]
SegLink[34]
RRPN[26]
EAST[43]
He et al.[13]
Proposed FSTN+SNMS
Proposed FSTN+MNMS

Precision (%)
44.0
71.0
73.2
79.0
73.1
73.2
83.3
82.0
87.1
88.6

Recall (%)
37.8
43.0
68.2
65.0
76.8
82.2
78.3
80.0
80.0
80.0

Hmean (%)
40.7
54.0
70.6
71.0
75.0
77.4
80.7
81.0
83.4
84.1

Fig. 6. Results of ICDAR2015, MSRA-TD500 and Total-Text

TABLE II
MSRA-TD500 DATASET
Method
Yao et al.[38]
Zhang et al.[42]
RRPN[26]
He et al.[13]
EAST[43]
SegLink[34]
Proposed FSTN+SNMS
Proposed FSTN+MNMS

Precision (%)
63.0
83.0
82.0
77.0
87.3
86.0
86.6
87.6

Recall (%)
63.0
67.0
68.0
70.0
67.4
70.0
77.3
77.1

Hmean (%)
60.0
74.0
74.0
74.0
76.1
77.0
81.7
82.0

TABLE III
T OTAL -T EXT DATASET
Method
Proposed FSTN

Precision (%)
84.7

Recall (%)
78.0

Hmean (%)
81.3

C. Results
Tabel.1 shows results of the proposed FSTN on IC15 compared with previous state of art published methods. SNMS and
MNMS represent standard NMS and Mask-NMS respectively.
Our FSTN with Mask-NMS outperforms former best result by
5.3% in Precision and 3.1% in Hmean. It is evaluated by the
official submission server1 .
Results on TD500 are shown in Table.2 along with other
state of art methods. It is shown that our methods outperform
1 http://rrc.cvc.uab.es/?ch=4

the current state of art approaches by a large margin in Hmean
and Recall, without adding extra real-world training images.
Our method also shows great flexibility on the total-text
dataset containing curved text. As the dataset is new to the
community, experiments are seldom conducted on it which
makes our results as a baseline shown in Table3. The evaluation metric uses IoU of 0.5 between each instance masks.
Outperforming the current state of the art, our approach runs
about 4 FPS on 848 × 1500 images and 2.5 FPS when using
Mask-NMS, which presents efficiency and accuracy.
It is noted that the proposed Mask-NMS significantly improved Hmean by 0.7 and 0.3 percent on IC15 and TD500,
which mainly target the situations in Fig.4 and Fig.5.
Fig.6 shows example results of FSTN. From left to right, it
illustrates results on IC15 ,TD500 and Total-Text dataset. The
decent performance for word-level, line-level and curved text
detection with large variation in resolution, view point, scale
and linguistics suggests excellent generalization ability.
V. C ONCLUSION
We present FSTN, an end-end efficient and accurate multioriented scene text detection framework. It has outperformed
previous state of the art approaches on word-level line-level
annotated benchmarks and report a baseline on total-text
demonstrating decent generalization ability and flexibility.
VI. ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
The research is supported by The National Key Research and Development Program of China under grant
2017YFB1002401.

R EFERENCES
[1] Michal Buta, Luka Neumann, and Jiri Matas. Fastext: Efficient unconstrained scene text detector. In IEEE International Conference on
Computer Vision, pages 1206–1214, 2015.
[2] Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos, Kevin Murphy, and Alan L Yuille. Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with
deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.00915, 2016.
[3] Tianqi Chen, Mu Li, Yutian Li, Min Lin, Naiyan Wang, Minjie Wang,
Tianjun Xiao, Bing Xu, Chiyuan Zhang, and Zheng Zhang. Mxnet:
A flexible and efficient machine learning library for heterogeneous
distributed systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.01274, 2015.
[4] Xiangrong Chen and Alan L. Yuille. Detecting and reading text in
natural scenes. In IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer
Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 366–373, 2004.
[5] Chee Kheng Chng and Chee Seng Chan. Total-text: A comprehensive
dataset for scene text detection and recognition. In 14th IAPR International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition ICDAR,
2017.
[6] Jifeng Dai, Kaiming He, and Jian Sun. Instance-aware semantic
segmentation via multi-task network cascades. In Proceedings of the
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages
3150–3158, 2016.
[7] Boris Epshtein, Eyal Ofek, and Yonatan Wexler. Detecting text in
natural scenes with stroke width transform. In Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2010 IEEE Conference on, pages 2963–
2970. IEEE, 2010.
[8] Ankush Gupta, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman. Synthetic data
for text localisation in natural images. pages 2315–2324, 2016.
[9] Shehzad Muhammad Hanif and Lionel Prevost. Text detection and
localization in complex scene images using constrained adaboost algorithm. In Document Analysis and Recognition, 2009. ICDAR’09. 10th
International Conference on, pages 1–5. IEEE, 2009.
[10] Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. Mask
r-cnn. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.06870, 2017.
[11] Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep
residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE
conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778,
2016.
[12] Tong He, Weilin Huang, Yu Qiao, and Jian Yao. Accurate text
localization in natural image with cascaded convolutional text network.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.09423, 2016.
[13] Wenhao He, Xu-Yao Zhang, Fei Yin, and Cheng-Lin Liu. Deep
direct regression for multi-oriented scene text detection. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1703.08289, 2017.
[14] Weilin Huang, Zhe Lin, Jianchao Yang, and Jue Wang. Text localization
in natural images using stroke feature transform and text covariance
descriptors. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Computer Vision, pages 1241–1248, 2013.
[15] Weilin Huang, Yu Qiao, and Xiaoou Tang. Robust Scene Text Detection
with Convolution Neural Network Induced MSER Trees. Springer
International Publishing, 2014.
[16] Max Jaderberg, Karen Simonyan, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman. Reading text in the wild with convolutional neural networks.
International Journal of Computer Vision, 116(1):1–20, 2016.
[17] Max Jaderberg, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman. Deep features
for text spotting. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages
512–528, 2014.
[18] Dimosthenis Karatzas, Lluis Gomez-Bigorda, et al. Icdar 2015 competition on robust reading. In International Conference on Document
Analysis and Recognition, pages 1156–1160, 2015.
[19] Dimosthenis Karatzas, Faisal Shafait, et al. Icdar 2013 robust reading
competition. In International Conference on Document Analysis and
Recognition, pages 1484–1493, 2013.
[20] Yi Li, Haozhi Qi, Jifeng Dai, Xiangyang Ji, and Yichen Wei. Fully
convolutional instance-aware semantic segmentation. In Proceedings
of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
2017.
[21] Minghui Liao, Baoguang Shi, Xiang Bai, Xinggang Wang, and Wenyu
Liu. Textboxes: A fast text detector with a single deep neural network.
In Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 2017.
[22] Min Lin, Qiang Chen, and Shuicheng Yan. Network in network. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1312.4400, 2013.

[23] Wei Liu, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Christian Szegedy, Scott
Reed, Cheng-Yang Fu, and Alexander C Berg. Ssd: Single shot multibox
detector. In European conference on computer vision, pages 21–37.
Springer, 2016.
[24] Yuliang Liu and Lianwen Jin. Deep matching prior network: Toward
tighter multi-oriented text detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.01425,
2017.
[25] Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. Fully convolutional
networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3431–
3440, 2015.
[26] Jianqi Ma, Weiyuan Shao, Hao Ye, Li Wang, Hong Wang, Yingbin
Zheng, and Xiangyang Xue. Arbitrary-oriented scene text detection via
rotation proposals. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.01086, 2017.
[27] J. Matas, O. Chum, M. Urban, and T. Pajdla. Robust wide-baseline stereo
from maximally stable extremal regions. Image & Vision Computing,
22(10):761–767, 2004.
[28] Lukas Neumann and Jiri Matas. A method for text localization and
recognition in real-world images. In Asian Conference on Computer
Vision, pages 770–783. Springer, 2010.
[29] Lukáš Neumann and Jiřı́ Matas. Real-time lexicon-free scene text
localization and recognition. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and
machine intelligence, 38(9):1872–1885, 2016.
[30] Luk Neumann and Ji Matas. Real-time scene text localization and
recognition. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, pages 3538–3545, 2012.
[31] Siyang Qin and Roberto Manduchi. Cascaded segmentation-detection
networks for word-level text spotting. 2017.
[32] S. Ren, K. He, R Girshick, and J. Sun. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time
object detection with region proposal networks. IEEE Transactions on
Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, 39(6):1137, 2017.
[33] Asif Shahab, Faisal Shafait, and Andreas Dengel. Icdar 2011 robust
reading competition challenge 2: Reading text in scene images. In
International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, pages
1491–1496, 2011.
[34] Baoguang Shi, Xiang Bai, and Serge Belongie. Detecting oriented text
in natural images by linking segments. In Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, 2017.
[35] Abhinav Shrivastava, Abhinav Gupta, and Ross Girshick. Training
region-based object detectors with online hard example mining. In
Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, pages 761–769, 2016.
[36] Shangxuan Tian, Yifeng Pan, Chang Huang, Shijian Lu, Kai Yu, and
Chew Lim Tan. Text flow: A unified text detection system in natural
scene images. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision,
pages 4651–4659, 2016.
[37] Kai Wang and Serge Belongie. Word spotting in the wild. In European
Conference on Computer Vision, pages 591–604. Springer, 2010.
[38] Cong Yao, Xiang Bai, Wenyu Liu, Yi Ma, and Zhuowen Tu. Detecting
texts of arbitrary orientations in natural images. In Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2012 IEEE Conference on, pages 1083–
1090. IEEE, 2012.
[39] Alessandro Zamberletti, Lucia Noce, and Ignazio Gallo. Text Localization Based on Fast Feature Pyramids and Multi-Resolution Maximally
Stable Extremal Regions. Springer International Publishing, 2014.
[40] Shuye Zhang, Mude Lin, Tianshui Chen, Lianwen Jin, and Liang Lin.
Character proposal network for robust text extraction. In Acoustics,
Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2016 IEEE International
Conference on, pages 2633–2637. IEEE, 2016.
[41] Zheng Zhang, Chengquan Zhang, Wei Shen, Cong Yao, Wenyu Liu,
and Xiang Bai. Multi-oriented text detection with fully convolutional
networks. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016.
[42] Zheng Zhang, Chengquan Zhang, Wei Shen, Cong Yao, Wenyu Liu,
and Xiang Bai. Multi-oriented text detection with fully convolutional
networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision
and Pattern Recognition, pages 4159–4167, 2016.
[43] Xinyu Zhou, Cong Yao, He Wen, Yuzhi Wang, Shuchang Zhou, Weiran
He, and Jiajun Liang. East: An efficient and accurate scene text detector.
In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2017.
[44] Yingying Zhu, Cong Yao, and Xiang Bai. Scene text detection and
recognition: recent advances and future trends. Frontiers of Computer
Science, 10(1):19–36, 2016.

