ufal/vit-historical-page

Image classification using fine-tuned ViT - for historical :bowtie: documents sorting

Goal: solve a task of archive page images sorting (for their further content-based processing)

Scope: Processing of images, training and evaluation of ViT model, input file/directory processing, class 🏷️ (category) results of top N predictions output, predictions summarizing into a tabular format, HF 😊 hub support for the model

Versions 🏁

There are currently 2 version of the model available for download, both of them have the same set of categories, but different data annotations. The latest v5.3 is considered to be default and can be found in the main branch of HF 😊 hub ^1 🔗

Version	Base	Pages	PDFs	Description
v2.0	vit-base-patch16-224	10073	3896	annotations with mistakes, more heterogenous data
v2.1	vit-base-patch16-224	11940	5002	main: more diverse pages in each category, less annotation mistakes
v2.2	vit-base-patch16-224	15855	5730	same data as v2.1 + some restored pages from v2.0
v3.2	vit-base-patch16-384	15855	5730	same data as v2.2, but a bit larger model base with higher resolution
v5.2	vit-large-patch16-384	15855	5730	same data as v2.2, but the largest model base with higher resolution
v1.2	efficientnetv2_s.in21k	15855	5730	same data as v2.2, but the smallest model base (CNN)
v4.2	efficientnetv2_l.in21k_ft_in1k	15855	5730	same data as v2.2, CNN base model smaller than the largest, may be more accurate
v2.3	vit-base-patch16-224	38625	37328	new data annotation phase data, more single-page documents used, transformer model
v3.3	vit-base-patch16-384	38625	37328	same data as v2.3, but a bit larger model base with higher resolution
v5.3	vit-large-patch16-384	38625	37328	same data as v2.3, but the largest model base with higher resolution
v1.3	efficientnetv2_m.in21k_ft_in1k	38625	37328	same data as v2.3, but the smallest model base (CNN)
v4.3	regnety_160.swag_ft_in1k	38625	37328	same data as v2.3, CNN base model bigger than the smallest, may be more accurate

Version	Parameters (M)	Resolution (px)	Revision
efficientnetv2_s.in21k	48	300	v1.X
efficientnetv2_m.in21k_ft_in1k	54	384	v1.3
vit-base-patch16-224	87	224	v2.X
vit-base-patch16-384	87	384	v3.X
regnety_160.swag_ft_in1k	84	224	v4.3
vit-large-patch16-384	305	384	v5.X
regnety_640.seer	281	384	v6.3

Base Model	Revision	max_cat	Best_Prec (%)	Best_Acc (%)	Fold	Note
google/vit-base-patch16-224	v2.3	14,000	98.79	98.79	5	OK & Small
google/vit-base-patch16-384	v3.3	14,000	98.92	98.92	2	Good & Small
google/vit-large-patch16-384	v5.3	14,000	99.12	99.12	2	Best & Large
microsoft/dit-base-finetuned-rvlcdip	v9.3	14,000	98.71	98.72	3
microsoft/dit-large-finetuned-rvlcdip	v10.3	14,000	98.66	98.66	3
microsoft/dit-large	v11.3	14,000	98.53	98.53	2
timm/regnety_120.sw_in12k_ft_in1k	v12.3	14,000	98.29	98.29	3
timm/regnety_160.swag_ft_in1k	v4.3	14,000	99.17	99.16	1	Best & Small
timm/regnety_640.see	v6.3	14,000	98.79	98.79	5	OK & Large
timm/tf_efficientnetv2_l.in21k_ft_in1k	v8.3	14,000	98.62	98.62	5
timm/tf_efficientnetv2_m.in21k_ft_in1k	v1.3	14,000	98.83	98.83	1	Good & Small
timm/tf_efficientnetv2_s.in21k	v7.3	14,000	97.90	97.87	1

Model description 📇

🔲 Fine-tuned model repository: vit-historical-page ^1 🔗

🔳 Base model repository:

• Google's vit-base-patch16-224, vit-base-patch16-384, and vit-large-patch16-284 ^2 ^6 ^7 🔗
• timm's regnety_160.swag_ft_in1k, efficientnetv2_s.in21k, efficientnetv2_m.in21k_ft_in1k, and efficientnetv2_l.in21k_ft_in1k ^11 ^8 ^12 ^9 🔗

Data 📜

The dataset is provided under Public Domain license, and consists of 48,499 PNG images of pages from 37,328 archival documents. The source image files and their annotation can be found in the LINDAT repository ^10 🔗.

Manual ✍️ annotation was performed beforehand and took some time ⌛, the categories 🪧 tabulated below were formed from different sources of the archival documents originated in the 1920-2020 years span.

Category	Dataset 0	Dataset 1	Dataset 2	Dataset 3
DRAW	1090 (9.1%)	1368 (8.8%)	1472 (9.3%)	2709 (5.6%)
DRAW_L	1091 (9.1%)	1383 (8.9%)	1402 (8.8%)	2921 (6.0%)
LINE_HW	1055 (8.8%)	1113 (7.2%)	1115 (7.0%)	2514 (5.2%)
LINE_P	1092 (9.1%)	1540 (9.9%)	1580 (10.0%)	2439 (5.0%)
LINE_T	1098 (9.2%)	1664 (10.7%)	1668 (10.5%)	9883 (20.4%)
PHOTO	1081 (9.1%)	1632 (10.5%)	1730 (10.9%)	2691 (5.5%)
PHOTO_L	1087 (9.1%)	1087 (7.0%)	1088 (6.9%)	2830 (5.8%)
TEXT	1091 (9.1%)	1587 (10.3%)	1592 (10.0%)	14227 (29.3%)
TEXT_HW	1091 (9.1%)	1092 (7.1%)	1092 (6.9%)	2008 (4.1%)
TEXT_P	1083 (9.1%)	1540 (9.9%)	1633 (10.3%)	2312 (4.8%)
TEXT_T	1081 (9.1%)	1476 (9.5%)	1482 (9.3%)	3965 (8.2%)
Unique PDFs	5001	5694	5729	37328
Total Pages	11,940	15,482	15,854	48,499

The table above shows category distribution for different model versions, where the last column (Dataset 3) corresponds to the latest vX.3 models data, which actually used 14,000 pages of TEXT category, while other columns cover all the used samples - specifically 80% as training 💪, and 10% each as development and test 🏆 sets. The early model version used 90% of the data as training 💪 and the remaining 10% as both development and test 🏆 set due to the lack of annotated (manually classified) pages.

Disproportion of the categories 🪧 in both training and evaluation data is NOT intentional, but rather a result of the source data nature.

Training set of the model: 8950 images for v2.0

Training set of the model: 10745 images for v2.1

Training set of the model: 14565 images for v2.X

Training set of the model: 38625 images for vX.3

Plus, the test sets:

Evaluation set: 1586 images (taken from v2.2 annotations)

Evaluation set: 4823 images (for vX.3 models)

Categories 🏷️

Label️	Description
DRAW	📈 - drawings, maps, paintings, schematics, or graphics, potentially containing some text labels or captions
DRAW_L	📈📏 - drawings, etc but presented within a table-like layout or includes a legend formatted as a table
LINE_HW	✏️📏 - handwritten text organized in a tabular or form-like structure
LINE_P	📏 - printed text organized in a tabular or form-like structure
LINE_T	📏 - machine-typed text organized in a tabular or form-like structure
PHOTO	🌄 - photographs or photographic cutouts, potentially with text captions
PHOTO_L	🌄📏 - photos presented within a table-like layout or accompanied by tabular annotations
TEXT	📰 - mixtures of printed, handwritten, and/or typed text, potentially with minor graphical elements
TEXT_HW	✏️📄 - only handwritten text in paragraph or block form (non-tabular)
TEXT_P	📄 - only printed text in paragraph or block form (non-tabular)
TEXT_T	📄 - only machine-typed text in paragraph or block form (non-tabular)

Data preprocessing

During training the following transforms were applied randomly with a 50% chance:

• transforms.ColorJitter(brightness 0.5)
• transforms.ColorJitter(contrast 0.5)
• transforms.ColorJitter(saturation 0.5)
• transforms.ColorJitter(hue 0.5)
• transforms.Lambda(lambda img: ImageEnhance.Sharpness(img).enhance(random.uniform(0.5, 1.5)))
• transforms.Lambda(lambda img: img.filter(ImageFilter.GaussianBlur(radius=random.uniform(0, 2))))

Training Hyperparameters

• eval_strategy "epoch"
• save_strategy "epoch"
• learning_rate 5e-5
• per_device_train_batch_size 8
• per_device_eval_batch_size 8
• num_train_epochs 3
• warmup_ratio 0.1
• logging_steps 10
• load_best_model_at_end True
• metric_for_best_model "accuracy"

Results 📊

Revision	Top-1	Top-3
v1.2	97.73	99.87
v2.2	97.54	99.94
v3.2	96.49	99.94
v4.2	97.73	99.87
v5.2	97.86	99.87
v1.3	96.81	99.78
v2.3	98.79	99.96
v3.3	98.92	99.98
v4.3	98.92	100.0
v5.3	99.12	99.94
v6.3	98.79	99.94

v2.2 Evaluation set's accuracy (Top-1): 97.54%

v3.2 Evaluation set's accuracy (Top-1): 96.49%

v5.2 Evaluation set's accuracy (Top-1): 97.73%

v1.2 Evaluation set's accuracy (Top-1): 97.73%

v4.2 Evaluation set's accuracy (Top-1): 97.86%

v1.3 Evaluation set's accuracy (Top-1): 98.83%

v2.3 Evaluation set's accuracy (Top-1): 98.79%

v3.3 Evaluation set's accuracy (Top-1): 98.92%

v4.3 Evaluation set's accuracy (Top-1): 98.16%

v5.3 Evaluation set's accuracy (Top-1): 99.12%

v6.3 Evaluation set's accuracy (Top-1): 98.79%

Result tables

• v2.2 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset results (TOP-1): model_TOP-3_EVAL.csv 🔗

• v2.2 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset results (TOP-3): model_TOP-3_EVAL.csv 🔗

• v3.2 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset results (TOP-1): model_TOP-3_EVAL.csv 🔗

• v3.2 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset results (TOP-3): model_TOP-3_EVAL.csv 🔗

• v5.2 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset results (TOP-1): model_TOP-3_EVAL.csv 🔗

• v5.2 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset results (TOP-3): model_TOP-3_EVAL.csv 🔗

• v1.2 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset results (TOP-1): model_TOP-3_EVAL.csv 🔗

• v1.2 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset results (TOP-3): model_TOP-3_EVAL.csv 🔗

• v4.2 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset results (TOP-1): model_TOP-3_EVAL.csv 🔗

• v4.2 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset results (TOP-3): model_TOP-3_EVAL.csv 🔗

• v1.3 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset (TOP-1): model_TOP-1_EVAL.csv 📎

• v2.3 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset (TOP-1): model_TOP-1_EVAL.csv 📎

• v3.3 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset (TOP-1): model_TOP-1_EVAL.csv 📎

• v4.3 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset (TOP-1): model_TOP-1_EVAL.csv 📎

• v5.3 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset (TOP-1): model_TOP-1_EVAL.csv 📎

• v6.3 Manually ✍ checked evaluation dataset (TOP-1): model_TOP-1_EVAL.csv 📎

Table columns

• FILE - name of the file
• PAGE - number of the page
• CLASS-N - label of the category 🏷️, guess TOP-N
• SCORE-N - score of the category 🏷️, guess TOP-N
• TRUE - actual label of the category 🏷️

Contacts 📧

For support write to 📧 lutsai.k@gmail.com 📧

Official repository: UFAL ^3

Acknowledgements 🙏

• Developed by UFAL ^5 👥
• Funded by ATRIUM ^4 💰
• Shared by ATRIUM ^4 & UFAL ^5
• Model type:
  • fine-tuned ViT with a 224x224 ^2 🔗 or 384x384 ^6 ^7 🔗 resolution size
  • fine-tuned EffNetV2 with a 300x300 ^8 🔗 or 384x384 ^9 🔗 resolution size

©️ 2022 UFAL & ATRIUM