A fast technique for comparing graph representations with applications to performance evaluation

International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 219-229

  Lopresti, D ^a   Wilfong, G ^b  

^a Lehigh University   (United States)

^b LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES   (United States)

Author keywords

Document recognition; Edit distance; Graph comparison; Layout analysis; Performance evaluation

Indexed keywords

DOCUMENT RECOGNITION; EDIT DISTANCE; GRAPH COMPARISON; LAYOUT ANALYSIS; PERFORMANCE EVALUATION;

TEXT PROCESSING;

GRAPHIC METHODS;

EID: 33745126452     PISSN: 14332833     EISSN: 14332825     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10032-003-0106-z     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Babai L, Erdös P, Selkow SM (1980) Random graph isomorphism. SIAM J Comput 9(3):628-635
2. Bunke H (1997) On a relation between graph edit distance and maximum common subgraph. Patt Recog Lett 18:689-694
3. Bunke H (2000) Recent developments in graph matching. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Barcelona, Spain, September 2000, 2:117-124
4. Bunke H, Messmer BT (1997) Recent advances in graph matching. Int J Patt Recog Artif Intell 11(1):169-203
5. Corneil DG, Kirkpatrick DG (1980) A theoretical analysis of various heuristics for the graph isomorphism problem. SIAM J Comput 9(2):281-297
6. Dubois D, Prade H, Sèdes F (1999) Some uses of fuzzy logic in multimedia databases querying. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Logical and Uncertainty Models for Information Systems, London, July 1999, pp 46-54
7. Fortin S (1996) The graph isomorphism problem. Department of Computer Science Technical Report TR 96-20, University of Alberta, Canada
8. Hu J, Kashi R, Lopresti D, Nagy, Wilfong G (2001) Why table ground-truthing is hard. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, Seattle, September 2001, pp 129-133
9. Hu J, Kashi R, Lopresti D, Wilfong G (2000) A system for understanding and reformulating tables. In: Proceedings of the 4th IAPR International Workshop on Docu ment Analysis Systems, Rio de Janeiro, December 2000, pp 361-372
10. Hu J, Kashi R, Lopresti D, Wilfong G (2001) Table structure recognition and its evaluation. In: Proceedings of Document Recognition and Retrieval VIII, San Jose, January 2001, 4307:44-55
11. Hu J, Kashi R, Lopresti D, Wilfong G (2002) Evaluating the performance of table processing algorithms. Int J Doc Anal Recog 4(3):140-153
12. Jolion JM (2001) Graph matching: what are we really talking about? In: Proceedings of the 3rd IAPR Workshop on Graph-Based Representations in Pattern Recognition, Ischia, Italy, May 2001. http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/503443.html
13. Kanungo T, Lee CH, Czorapinski J, Bella I (2001) TRUEVIZ: a groundtruth / metadata editing and visualizing toolkit for OCR. In: Proceedings of Document Recognition and Retrieval VIII, San Jose, January 2001, 4307:1-12
14. Koutsofios E, North SC (1991) Drawing graphs with dot. Technical Report 59113-910904-08TM, AT&T Bell Laboratories
15. Lazarescu M, Bunke H, Venkatesh S (2000) Graph matching: fast candidate elimination using machine learning techniques. In: Advances in pattern recognition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1876, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 236-245
16. Lopresti D, Wilfong G (2001a) Applications of graph probing toWeb document analysis. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on Web document analysis, Seattle, September 2001, pp 51-54
17. Lopresti D, Wilfong G (2001b) Comparing semistructured documents via graph probing. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Multimedia Information Systems, Capri, Italy, November 2001, pp 41-50
18. Lopresti D, Wilfong G (2001c) Evaluating document analysis results via graph probing. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, Seattle, September 2001, pp 116-120
19. McKay B (1990) Nauty User's Guide (Version 1.5). Computer Science Department, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
20. McKay B (1981) Practical graph isomorphism. Congressus Numerantium 30:45-87
21. Messmer BT, Bunke H (1995) Efficient error-tolerant subgraph isomorphism detection. In: Shape, Structure and Pattern Recognition, World Scientific, Singapore, pp 231-240
22. Myers R, Wilson RC, Hancock ER (2000) Bayesian graph edit distance. IEEE Trans Patt Anal Mach Intell 22(6):628-635
23. Nagy G, Seth S (1984) Hierarchical representation of optically scanned documents. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Montréal, July 1984, pp 347-349
24. Ousterhout JK (1994) Tcl and the Tk toolkit. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA
25. Papadopoulos AN, Manolopoulos Y (1998) Structurebased similarity search with graph histograms. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, pp 174-178. IEEE Press, New York
26. Phillips I, Chen S, Haralick R (1993) CD-ROM document database standard. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, Tsukuba Science City, Japan, October 1993, pp 478-483
27. Sanfeliu A, Fu KS (1983) A distance measure between attributed relational graphs for pattern recognition. IEEE Trans Sys Man Cybern 13(3):353-362
28. Schlieder T, Naumann F (2000) Approximate tree embedding for querying XML data. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR Workshop on XML and Information Retrieval, Athens, Greece, July 2000, pp 53-67
29. Tsai WH, Fu KS (1979) Error-correcting isomorphisms of attributed relational graphs for pattern analysis. IEEE Trans Sys Man Cybern 9(12):757-768
30. Valiente G, Martínez C (1997) An algorithm for graph pattern-matching. In: Proceedings of the 4th South American Workshop on String Processing, Valparaíso, Chile, November 1997, pp 180-197. Carleton University Press, Ottawa, Ontario