Adaptive Radial Projection on Fourier Magnitude Spectrum for Document Image Skew Estimation
Authors: Luan Pham, Phu Hao Hoang, Xuan Toan Mai, Tuan Anh Tran
Organizations: Cinnamon AI - Department of Research, Floor 10th, No. 36 Hoang Cau street, O Cho Dua Ward, Dong Da District, Hanoi City, Viet Nam. · Faculty of Computer Science & Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City-University of Technology (HCMUT), 268 Ly Thuet Street, District 10, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam · Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Linh Trung Ward, Thu Duc District, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Skew estimation is one of the vital tasks in document processing systems, especially for scanned document images, because its performance impacts subsequent steps directly. Over the years, an enormous number of researches focus on this challenging problem in the rise of digitization age. In this research, we first propose a novel skew estimation method that extracts the dominant skew angle of the given document image by applying an Adaptive Radial Projection on the 2D Discrete Fourier Magnitude spectrum. Second, we introduce a high quality skew estimation dataset DISE-2021 to assess the performance of different estimators. Finally, we provide comprehensive analyses that focus on multiple improvement aspects of Fourier-based methods. Our results show that the proposed method is robust, reliable, and outperforms all compared methods. The source code is available at https://github.com/phamquiluan/jdeskew.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The overview of our adaptive projection.
Figure 2: The change of AED and CE levels when tuning the distance D . The chosen threshold ( x ) should bring the lowest AED value.
Figure 3: An example of low-quality annotation in DISEC2013, deskewed by DISEC2013 ground-truth angle (left) and our system (right).
Block Size
1024
2048
AED
TOP80
CE
AED
TOP80
CE
N=h∗0.1
0.95
0.75
0.01
0.91
0.55
0.03
N=h∗0.2
0.56
0.43
0.03
0.51
0.33
0.02
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
N=h∗0.9
0.16
0.11
0.39
0.15
0.08
0.57
N=h
0.14
0.09
0.47
0.12
0.07
0.62
Table 1: Effects of image division with different block size.
1024
2048
AED
TOP80
CE
AED
TOP80
CE
Magnitude Spectrum
0.14
0.09
0.47
0.12
0.07
0.62
Power Spectrum
0.2
0.14
0.28
0.19
0.15
0.35
Table 2: Comparison of Magnitude and Power Spectrum
Window Size
1024
3072
AED
TOP80
CE
AED
TOP80
CE
W=15
0.14
0.09
0.47
0.1
0.06
0.68
W=35
0.13
0.09
0.49
0.1
0.06
0.69
W=55
0.13
0.09
0.51
0.11
0.06
0.7
W=75
0.13
0.09
0.53
0.11
0.06
0.72
W=h/10
0.13
0.08
0.55
0.74
0.04
0.81
Table 3: Efficiency comparison when discarding the DC component and small frequencies by different window size on our baseline.
Figure 4: (a) The sorted absolute error curve and (b) its log-scale version of four different methods on DISE 2021 ( 15∘ ) dataset.
Method
DISE 2021
DISE 2021 (45)
AED
TOP80
CE
WE
AED
TOP80
CE
WE
Our (2048)
0.08
0.04
0.84
1.13
0.06
0.03
0.87
1.06
Our (3072)
0.07
0.04
0.86
1.13
0.06
0.02
0.88
1.06
Our (4096)
0.08
0.04
0.83
1.18
0.06
0.03
0.86
1.06
FredsDeskew
10.82
0.09
0.54
109
12.44
0.1
0.51
110
PypiDeskew
16.59
0.24
0.2
141
21.79
2.51
0.14
179
Table 4: Quantitative comparison of different methods on the DISE2021 15∘ and 44.9∘ datasets.
Mar 14, 2026·Henry Marichal, Diego Passarella, Gregory Randall
Instituto de Ingenieria Electrica, Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad de la Republica, Uruguay · Sede Tacuarembo, CENUR Noreste, Universidad de la Republica, Uruguay