Skip to content
master
Switch branches/tags
Go to file
Code

Files

Permalink
Failed to load latest commit information.
Type
Name
Latest commit message
Commit time

Omniscribe

DOI

Omniscribe was developed to detect annotations (marginalia, interlinear markings, provenance marks, etc.) in digitized printed books hosted via the International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF). Why do we care about finding annotations? Annotations and other marks are traces left behind by previous readers and owners. Through these markings, we can better understand how readers in the past have used their books or interpreted their contents.

Formed in December 2018, the project is a Collections Lab/BuildUCLA collaboration with a team of UCLA Digital Library staff and UCLA students.

Phase 2 Project team: train model and develop application

  • Dawn Childress
  • Pete Broadwell
  • Jonathan Quach
  • Morgan Madjukie
  • Andrew Wallace

Phase 1 Project team: research and testing

  • Dawn Childress
  • Pete Broadwell
  • Johnny Ho
  • Andrew Wallace
  • Jonathan Quach
  • Morgan Madjukie
  • Emily Chen
  • Rahul Malavalli

annotations.png

Fig. 1 A sample image generated using our Mask-RCNN model.

Data

https://ucla.app.box.com/folder/45481483089

UPDATE #2 February 13, 2019

🎉 Happy Valentine's Day Eve!🎉

The team has met bi-weekly throughout the winter quarter and is transitioning from R&D workflows to a product development workflow.

Up until recent, the only data we had readily available for training came from one of the members of the team annotating a hundred or so regions, which is hardly representative of all the possible annotations that exist in the world. To gather more data, we used Zooniverse to crowdsource more data. We received over 2000 responses and gathered several hundred regions of annotations and made that data readily available to train. Thus, we now have two models: the model that was trained on a smaller set of annotations (call it msmall), and another model trained based on the data gathered from zooniverse (call it mzoo).

There are various ways that we can evaluate these models. Ideally, we would have these models see a test set, know the total amount of annotated regions in this test set, and perhaps compute an F1 score and an accuracy score. However, what makes something a "region" for us is arguably blurred. For example, when considering a whole page of handwriting, msmall would detect multiple regions, stratisfying the page. mzoo however, would see the entire page as one region of annotation. Both models are correct, but accuracy score would not account for the difference in their predictions. We also should not use F1 because there are uncountably many regions that are not annotated, which makes for an indefinite amount of True Negatives in the F1 calculation. For now, we have settled on using a True Positive / False Positive ratio (TP/FP) as a metric of evaluation. That is, the higher the TP/FP, the better a model is performing.

In our test set, msmall scored a TP/FP of 140/14, while mzoo received a higher TP/FP of 87/7. However, a qualitative anaylsis suggests that neither of these models should be used alone. We found that msmall detected interlinear annotations and rarely detected tiny annotations (e.g. a lone # or a scribbled number), while mzoo detected tiny annotations but never found interlinear annotations. At this point, we have made the decision to allow both models to observe an image, and further process the image should either model detect at least one region in it.

We are also now looking to wrap up these models in a nice package for others to use. The plan is to integrate Flask with our machine learning tools to achieve the goal of usability. In the meantime, we are also planning to upload more of our data onto Zooniverse so that we can later train a third model that may improve on our current choice of having two models.


UPDATE #1 January 3, 2019

🎉Happy New Year!🎉

The team had one meeting over winter break. We discussed possible pipelines for integrating IIIF manifests as input for our tool.

As of now, our tool has a command-line interface, taking local images as input and outputting a copy of the image with a color spash on any annotation found; however, a large collection of annotated books are actually archived over IIIF servers. With this in mind, we are looking into porting this tool to a web interface that can instead retrieve annotations from IIIF manifests.


Approaches we explored during Phase 1

  • Mask-RCNN (current approach)

  • Auto-Keras

Mask-RCNN is currently our best solution to detecting annotations. It is state-of-the-art in computer vision as it is the result of continuous advancements in using convolutional neural networks for image segmentation. More information of its upbringing as well as its predecessors are found below.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.06870.pdf https://github.com/matterport/Mask_RCNN

Perhaps what makes Mask-RCNN the most feasible solution for us over other approaches is the fact that we can treat our images as regions and consider annotations as regions of interest (ROIs). This is in contrast of treating our problem as a binary classification problem (i.e. annotated v.s. not annotated). After training the Mask-RCNN on our dataset, we get desirable results as shown in Figure 1.


Auto-Keras is currently the best open-source library for automatically generating machine learning models for your datasets. It competes directly with Google's AutoML and has an active community backing it. More information can be found in the link below.

https://autokeras.com

From our experience, we believe that Auto-Keras is a great tool for those who want to do simple image classification. However, we found that the models they generate are generally dense and complex to achieve desirable results where a simpler model with fewer layers will perform just as well or even better. For the more experienced, we recommend using the models that Auto-Keras generates as benchmarks for your own models. It is also important to note that only image classification is supported as of 1/3/19, with ML features for text, audio, and video as possible features as the community grows larger to implement them.

Approaches we Have Attempted During December 2017 - June 2018

  • Vanilla CNN (implemented in PyTorch)

  • PyTesseract

  • OpenCV

The following link discusses our experience with the approaches aforementioned, including project overview, data preparation, data pre-processing, and comparing non-ML v.s. ML approaches.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1rqTioMwiLpMBgRY8NdbcbXLtifYfNxk7ZT2d6d3Yyes/edit#slide=id.g353a76bac2_0_525