Method for comparing word shapes

Abstract: A method for determining the relative equivalency or match between two or more character strings represented in an array of image data, including the steps of determining page orientation, isolating (18) character strings from adjacent character strings, and establishing (20,22) a set of boundaries or reference lines about the character strings. Subsequently, the boundaries are used to represent the character string images as word shape contours or signals which are generated (24) from the imaginal data within the boundaries. The word shape contours are then compared (26) using one of the described comparison methods (e.g. Fig. 20) to determine the relative equivalency or similarity of the contours.

Description: This invention relates to methods and apparatus for comparing strings of symbols which form word objects within data defining an image. Text in electronically encoded documents (electronic documents) tends to be found in either of two formats, each distinct from the other. In a first format, the text may be in a bitmap format, in which text is defined only in terms of an array of image data or pixels, essentially indistinguishable from adjacent images which are similarly represented. In this format, text is generally incapable of being subjected to processing by a computer based on textual content alone. In a second format, hereinafter referred to as a character code format, the text is represented as a string of character codes (e.g. ASCII code). In the character code format, the image or bitmap of the text is not available. Conversion from bitmap to character code format using an optical character recognition (OCR) process carries a significant cost in terms of time and processing effort. Each bitmap of a character must be distinguished from its neighbors, its appearance analyzed, and in a decision making process, identified as a distinct character in a predetermined set of characters. When the electronic document has been derived by scanning an original, however, image quality and noise in its reproduction contribute to uncertainty in the actual appearance of the bitmap. A degraded bitmap appearance may be caused by an original document of poor quality, by scanning error, or by similar factors affecting the digitized representation of the image. Therefore, the decision process employed in identifying a character has an inherent uncertainty about it. A particular problem in this regard is the tendency of characters in text to blur, or merge. Most character identifying processes commence with an assumption that a character is an independent set of connected pixels. When this assumption fails, due to the quality of the input image, character identification also fails. OCR methods have sought to improve reliability by use of dictionary word verification methods. However, the underlying problem of accurate character detection of each character in a character string remains. Brickman, N.F. and Rosenbaum, W.S., "Word Autocorrelation Redundancy Match (WARM) Technology", IBM J. of Res. Develop., Vol. 26. No. 6, November 1982, pp. 681-686, discloses a technique that compares the facsimile image of word fields to the font image of the 150 most common words; if a word passes the match threshold, a code for that word replaces the word facsimile image. Words are screened to limit processing to likely match candidates on the basis of width and height and also by searching for ascenders and descenders, then using their locations to calculate a distance metric for comparison to a library entry. A word that passes screening is matched by overlaying it from left to right with the font image of the 150 most common words. Nakano, T., Yamamoto, S., Takeda, N., "A New Recognition Method for Stamped and Painted Alphanumerals", Systems and Computers in Japan, Vol. 21, No. 4. 1990, pp. 26-35, discloses a technique in which the external contour of a character is extracted from the circumscribing rectangle of the character pattern to obtain profiles for the top, bottom, left and right sides, and the left and right side profiles are then smoothed and compared with a standard contour pattern to perform recognition. It is an object of the present invention to provide a method for determining the equivalency of word or character strings represented in image data, without a requirement for individually detecting and/or identifying the character or characters making up the strings. In one aspect of the invention, there is provided a method for comparing strings of symbols that form word objects within data defining one or more images to determine a relative measure of similarity between strings, comprising: (A) isolating a word object formed by a first symbol string in data defining an image; (B) deriving a first signal representative of the first string of symbols; (C) deriving a second signal representative of a second string of symbols; and (D) using the first and second signals to obtain a difference measure indicative of the relative similarity between the first and second strings; characterised in that the first signal indicates a set of distances relative to a first set of sampling positions lying on a first line extending through the first symbol string, each distance being determined at a predetermined angle with respect to the first line between a sampling position and a contour of the first string, and in that the second signal indicates a set of distances relative to a second set of sampling positions lying on a second line extending through the second symbol string, each distance being determined at a predetermined angle with respect to the second line between a sampling position and a contour of the second string; the first and second signals representing shapes of the first and second strings; respectively; further characterised in that (D) comprises: (D1) obtaining, for each of a range of the sampling positions, a difference between the distance indicated by the first signal and the distance indicated by the second signal; and (D2) using the differences from (D1) to arrive at the difference measure. In one embodiment of the invention, the process for analysing the relative similarity between the one-dimensional shape signals of two discrete word objects employs a dynamic time warping process to minimize the differences between the one-dimensional signals being analysed. In accordance with another aspect of the invention, there is provided apparatus for determining the equivalency of strings of symbols which form word objects within data defining one or more images to determine a relative measure of the similarity between the symbol strings, comprising: isolation means for isolating a word object formed by a first symbol string in data defining an image; signal deriving means for deriving a first signal representative of the first symbol string and for deriving a second signal representative of a second string of symbols; and comparison means for using the first and second signals to obtain a difference measure indicative of the relative similarity between the first and second strings; characterised in that the first signal indicates a set of distances relative to a first set of sampling positions lying on a first line extending through the first symbol string, each distance being determined at a predetermined angle with respect to the first line between a sampling position and a contour of the first string, and in that the second signal indicates a set of distances relative to a second set of sampling positions lying on a second line extending through the second symbol string, each distance being determined at a predetermined angle with respect to the second line between a sampling position and a contour of the second string; the first and second signals representing shapes of the first and second strings, respectively; further characterised in that the comparison means obtains, for each of a range of the sampling positions, a difference between the distance indicated by the first signal and the distance indicated by the second signal; the comparison means using the differences to arrive at the difference measure. More generally, a method in accordance with the invention can be used for determining the relevancy, defined by the number of common words appearing in both, of two documents, said documents being represented as arrays of image data. Such a method may, for example, comprise the steps of generating word shape contours for each symbol string within the first array of image pixels; generating word shape contours for each symbol string within the second array of image pixels; comparing all of the word shape contours of the first array with all of the word shape contours of the second array to produce difference measures for all pairs of word shape contours compared; determining the number of word shape pairs having difference measures below a predetermined threshold; and based upon said number, determining what proportion of the words contained in the two documents were similar, thereby producing an indication of the reference of the two documents. The present invention seeks to avoid the problems inherent in OCR methods, while utilizing the fundamental characteristics of words and text strings. Specifically, the signal to noise ratio inherent in image derivation, or the image process, is relatively small for a character, but relatively large compared to a larger character string. Moreover, word-to-word spacing tends to be larger than character to character spacing, and therefore, allows improved isolation and identification of character strings as compared to identification of individual characters. OCR methods also tend to require several correct decisions about aspects of a character preparatory to a correct identification, including identification of portions of the character as ascenders, descenders, curves, etc., all of which are fallible. Identification of word boundaries initially requires determination of the characteristics of the text lines within the image. Subsequently, derivation of a one-dimensional signal representative of the word shape, and comparison of the derived signal to other word shape signals may be completed by a method in accordance with the present invention. Hence, assumptions about the word are not made until the comparisons occur, thereby eliminating the impact of invalid character based assumptions which may cause subsequent erroneous comparisons and decisions. In examining potential uses of computer processed text, it has been determined that, at least in certain cases, deriving each letter of the word is not required for processing requirements. Thus, for example, in a key word search of a text image, rather than converting, via OCR techniques, each letter of each word, and subsequently determining from the possibly flawed character coding whether one or more key words are present, a computer might instead generate and compare the shapes of words within the text image with the shape of the key word, and evaluate whether the key word is present by shape. The output of such a system would most likely present an indication of the presence of the key words to an accuracy acceptable to a user. Furthermore, it is believed that the described method will have processing speed advantages over OCR methods. The probability of an incorrect determination of a letter by OCR methods may be relatively low, however, the probabilities are multiplicatively cumulative over an entire word. Hence, using OCR to convert words into character code strings, prior to searching for, or recognizing, the words may result in considerable error. A method in accordance with the present invention, described below, utilizes word level segmentation of the image data to enable subsequent word recognition in a manner similar to that which humans use while reading or skimming a text passage. Moreover, the described word shape recognition process has several advantages. First, the bitmap image data is not irretrievably lost, and a reasonable representation of the bitmap remains so that a user may examine a reconstructed bitmap for actual word determination, if desired. Secondly, by utilizing complete words, each letter has the context of the word to assist in the word's comparison to other word shapes. The presence of a poorly formed letter in a word only minimally affects the total identifiability of the word shape signal, by slightly increasing the difference value between two compared signals. Thirdly, small words, which have the greatest probability of false recognition, generally have the lowest information content. Accordingly, the words in which errors are most likely to occur are the words which are of least importance in an information content sense. In addition, when considered in comparison with the performance of OCR methods, which are more likely to result in mistakes for words having more characters, the present method generally exhibits a more robust word recognition capability. OCR methods convert from a bitmap to a representative character code, thereby losing the informational content of the bitmap. In general, the process is not reversible to obtain the original bitmap from the character code. However, identification of words based on shape, as described in accordance with the present invention, tends to retain more bitmap information further into the recognition process, thereby enabling a reasonable reconstruction of the bitmap from the one-dimensional signal. Hence, a significant portion of the bitmap information is retained by the one-dimensional signal used to represent the shape of the selected text or character string. By way of example only, embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which: Figure 1A shows a generalized system diagram of an image processing system; Figure 1B shows a block system diagram of the arrangement of system components forming a word shape recognition system; Figure 2 shows an image sample of example text; Figure 3 is a copy of a scanned image of the example text; Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C graphically illustrate the process used to determine the angle at which the example text is oriented in the image sample prior for further processing, while 4D, shows graphs of the responses taken from the example text, which are used to determine the angle at which the example text is oriented in the image sample prior to further processing; Figures 5A and 5B respectively show the derivation and use of a graph examining the sample image of the example text to determine baselines of text within the image, Figure 5B showing only a portion of the larger graph of Figure 5A; Figures 6A and 6B are flowcharts illustrating the procedures executed to determine the baselines shown in Figure 5A; Figure 7 shows the scanned image of the example text with baselines indicated thereon after derivation from the data shown in Figures 5A and 5B; Figure 8 is a flowchart illustrating the steps used in the application of a median filter to the image of Figure 2; Figure 9 is an enlarged pictorial representation of a portion of the image of Figure 2, illustrating the application of the median filter; Figure 10 demonstrates the resulting image after application of a median filter, a process known herein as blobifying, to the scanned image of the example text, which tends to render character strings as a single set of connected pixels; Figure 11 shows a subsequent step in the process, in which lines of white pixels are added to the blurred image to clearly delineate a line of character strings from adjacent lines of character strings; Figure 12 is a flowchart illustrating the steps required to add the white lines of Figure 11; Figures 13A and 13B are flowcharts representing the procedure which is followed to segment the image data in accordance with the blurred image of Figure 10; Figure 14 shows the sample text with bounding boxes placed around each word group in a manner which uniquely identifies a subset of image pixels containing each character string; Figures 15A and 15B illustrate derivation of a single independent value signal, using the example word "from", which appears in the sample image of example text; Figure 16 illustrates the resulting contours formed by the derivation process illustrated in Figures 15A, B; Figure 17 illustrates the steps associated with deriving the word shape signals; Figures 18A, 18B, 18C and 18D illustrate derivation of a single independent value signal, using the example word "from"; Figures 19A, 19B, 19C and 19D illustrate derivation of a single independent value signal, using the example word "red", which does not appear in the sample image of example text; Figure 20 shows a simple comparison of the signals derived for the words "red" and "from" using a signal normalization method; Figures 21A, 21B, and 21C illustrate the details of the discrepancy in font height, and the method for normalization of such discrepancies; Figure 22 is a flowchart detailing the steps used for one method of determining the relative difference between word shape contours; Figure 23 is a flowchart detailing the steps of a second method for determining the relative difference between word shape contours; and Figures 24A and 24B are respective illustrations of the relationship between the relative difference values calculated and stored in an array, for both a non-slope-constrained and a slope-constrained comparison. Referring now to the drawings, Figure 1A shows a generalized image processing system, which covers numerous situations in which methods in accordance with the present invention may find advantageous use. Generally, a source image may be derived from a source image derivation system 2, which may be a scanner, facsimile device, or storage system. The source image is forwarded to a computer processing device 4 which may be any of several well known devices or the inventive device described herein. In response to commands entered at user interface 6, processing device 4 produces an output at an output device 8, which may be a printer, display, facsimile device or other storage device. In essence, as is shown in the upper portion of Figure 1, an input document is directed into a system and an output document is retrieved from it. Figure 1B, shows a system for deriving, defining, and comparing words in terms of their shapes. It will, of course, be recognized that each element of the system may be many devices, or may simply be a program operated within a single device. Beginning with an input bitmap 10, whose source is indeterminate and not part of the invention, a bitmap is initially directed to a segmentation system 12, in which words, or character strings, or other multi-character units of understanding, will be derived. Initially, the image bitmap passes through skew detector 14, which determines the angle of orientation of text in the image. Using information about the orientation of the image, and the image itself, at text baseline processor 16, toplines and baselines of the text are determined, so that upper and lower boundaries of lines of text within the image are identified. At median filter 18, the function referred to as "blobify" is performed, which operates on the image so that each word group in a line may be treated as a single unit. As used herein, "word", "symbol string" or "character string" refer to a set of connected alphanumeric or punctuation elements, or more broadly, signs or symbols which together form a single unit of semantic understanding. Such single units of understanding are characterized in an image as separated by a spacing greater than that which separates the elements, signs or symbols forming the unit. To the blobified image, a set of white lines are added at block 20, to clearly separate adjacent lines of text. The white lines are based on baseline determinations provided by processor 16. Using this information, i.e., the blobified words, which are clearly separated from adjacent words and words in adjacent lines, a bounding box is defined about the word at block 22, thereby identifying and enclosing the word. Thereafter word shape signal computer 24 derives a word shape signal representing the individual words in the image, based on the original image and the bounding box determinations. This information is then available for use at a word shape comparator 26, for comparing word shape signals representative of known words from a word shape dictionary 28, with the as yet unidentified word shape signals. In an alternative embodiment word shape comparator 26 may be used to compare two or more word shapes determined from image 10. More importantly, word shape comparator 26 is not limited to the comparison of word shapes from unrecognized strings of characters to known word shapes. In a simplified context, comparator 26 is merely an apparatus for comparing one word shape against another to produce a relative indication of the degree of similarity between the two shapes. Having generally described the steps of a word shape recognition process, the mathematical bases of such a system may also be considered. Considering, for example, image data i(x,y) , which in one common case could be an array of image data in the form of a bitmap, a character set is identified in one of many methods, perhaps as described above, which defines a boundary enclosing the selected character string within a subset of the array of image data. From i(x,y) , an edge signal e(x,y) , which represents the edges of i(x,y) detected within the closed boundary, is derived. The edge signal is augmented by adding additional data to i(x,y) so that e(x,y) is a continuous signal e'(x,y) defined over its entire domain with respect to an independent variable within the closed boundary. One, two, or more signals may be derived from e'(x,y) which are each one-dimensional signals g'(t ) where g is a function of the independent variable t which is a reference frame dependent parameter. The mathematical explanation of the word shape derivation process suggests that alternative methods of deriving the word shape signal exist. Some possible alternatives are the establishment of the one dimensional signal using an alternative coordinate scheme, for example polar coordinates. Another possibility is generation of signal g(t) , where g(t) represents the direction from each contour point to the succeeding contour point, where t would represent the point number. Next, a computational method of calculating the word shape will be given. Once orientation of the image is established and line spacing and word group spacing is established, each word can be surrounded by a bounding box. A reference line is then created extending through the character string image. The reference line may be a block having a finite thickness ranging from two-thirds of the x-height to one-third of the x-height, or in fact it may have a zero width. At the resolution of the image, the distance from the reference line to the upper edge of the text contour or bounding box is measured in a direction perpendicular to the reference line. Similarly, measurements may be made from the reference line to the lower bounding box edge or to the text contour along the lower portion of the word. Because the set of values derived computationally can be expressed in terms of position along the horizontal axis versus length, the signal can be considered a one-dimensional signal. Either or both of these values may be used to describe the word shape. It is important to realize that the mathematical process used for the derivation of the one-dimensional signal is essentially reversible. It will be noted that if the reference has a finite thickness and is therefore taken out of the image, that portion of the image is not identifiable: however, if it has a zero width the information still remains. A recognition dictionary, or look up table of word shapes, can clearly be created through the use of the described process. The process can be operated on, using either scanned words as the source of the information, or in fact, computer generated words for a more "perfect" dictionary. Having defined the general method and apparatus for word shape comparison, as well as the mathematical basis for the method, each step will now be more completely described. To further demonstrate the process, at Figure 2, a sample image, taken from a public domain source is shown, having several lines of text contained therein. Figure 2 demonstrates approximately how the image would appear on the page of text, while Figure 3 shows a scanned image of the page, which demonstrates an enlargement of the image of a bitmap that would present problems to known OCR methods. Looking at, for example, the image of the word 50 "practitioner" in the first line of the text image, it may be seen that several of the letters run together. Also, at the lower right hand portion of the image, circled and numbered 52, noise is present. Looking at the word "practitioner's", circled and numbered 54, the running together of a punctuation mark and a letter is further noted. A general method for determining the orientation of the text lines in the image looks at a small number of randomly,selected edge pixels (defined as a black pixel adjacent to at least one white pixel), and for each edge pixel considers a number of lines, 56a, 56b, 56c being examples, extending from the pixel at evenly spaced angular increments over a specified range of angles. The edge pixels are selected randomly from the set of all image pixels. Figures 4A (see lines 56a, 56b, 56c), 4B (see lines 58a, 58b, 58c) and 4C (see lines 60a, 60b, 60c) represent a series of increasingly smaller angular ranges over which the above mentioned technique is applied to illustrative edge pixels to accurately determine the angular orientation of the text within the image. Subsequent to finding edge pixels and defining the lines, skew detector 14 traces the path of each line, determining the lengths, in pixels, of strings of successive black pixels which are intersected by the line. Upon reaching the image boundary, an average black pixel string length is calculated by summing the lengths of the individual strings, and dividing the sum by the total number of distinct strings which were found. This operation is carried out for all the lines, thereby arriving at an average black pixel string length for each line extending from the selected edge pixel. These lengths are plotted on Figure 4D as curve A, showing minima at approximately 0 and 3.14 radians. Curve A is a graphical representation of the summation/averaging function over each of a series of angled lines extending from the edge pixel, and spread over a range from 0 to 2π radians. Once a first minimum has been located, verification of the minimum (in the example, approximately 0 radians) is achieved by determining whether a second minimum exists at approximately π radians from the first minimum. Upon verifying the existence of a second minima (in the example, approximately 3. 14 or π radians), a coarse skew angle is identified. Subsequently, it is necessary to more closely determine the skew angle of the text. This is accomplished by utilizing a number of lines which extend from a randomly selected edge pixel, where the lines differ by smaller angular increments, and the angular range is centered about the coarse skew angle. However, the fine skew angle may be determined by analyzing the total number of black pixels contained along a predetermined length of the lines. More specifically, the number of pixels over a unit distance are plotted as curve B on Figure 4D, and the fine skew angle is determined by identifying the maxima of the curve. In other words, the point of the curve where the highest concentration of black pixels per unit line length exists, more accurately represents the angle of the text lines in the image. As shown by curve B, this results in a fine skew angle of approximately 0 radians, where the line intersects with the most black pixels along its length, and therefore is representative of the closest angle of orientation that needs to be determined. Alternatively, the skew angle may be determined, using multiple iterations of the procedure described with respect to the fine angle determination. As indicated by Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C, each iteration would also use lines covering an increasingly smaller angular range, until a desired skew angle accuracy is reached. In the implementation illustrated by Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C, the desired accuracy is achieved by a series of three iterations, each using a series of 180 distinct angles about the selected edge pixel. In the next process step, illustrated in the graphs of Figure 5A and Figure 5B, text baseline processor 16 identifies the characteristic lines, upper topline and lower baseline, of each line of text. The process steps executed by text baseline processor 16 are illustrated in detail in Figure 6A and 6B. The histogram of Figure 5A, shown to the left along the image, is derived by examining lines, at the resolution of the image, and oriented parallel to the skew orientation of the image, as defined by the previously determined skew angle. These parallel lines spanning the image are used to determine the number of black pixels intersected by each of the lines. Along lines passing through inter-text line spaces, no black pixels should be intercepted, while along lines through the text, large numbers of black pixels should be intercepted. More specifically, the coordinates of a "main" line constructed through the center of the image and perpendicular to the text lines are first found (block 142), as determined by the skew angle passed to the function, shown by block 140. Next, Line Engine Procedure 144 is executed, where by proceeding along the main line from one end to the other, at a series of points along the main line, perpendicular branch lines are constructed which extend outwardly from the main line for a fixed distance, block 146. Along the branch lines, the number of black vertical edge pixels are counted, block 148, and the number of black pixels intersected by the lines are counted, block 150, and summed for the opposing pairs of lines, block 152. Black vertical edge pixels, as counted by block 148, are defined as black pixels having a white neighboring pixel at either the upper or lower neighboring pixel position. LineEngine procedure 144 is repeated until all points, and associated branch lines, along the main line have been processed, as determined by decision block 154. Subsequently, the counts for all the branch lines are analyzed to determine the branch line pairs having the highest ratio of black vertical edge pixels to black pixels. In general, those lines having the highest percentages would correspond to lines passing along the upper and lower edges of the characters which form the text lines. As illustrated in the enlarged view of Figure 5B, a definite distinction exists between those branch lines having a high vertical edge pixel ratio, position 82, and those having a low ratio, position 84. Application of a filter mask and comparison of the maximum peaks within the mask enables the identification of those lines which represent the text toplines and baselines, for example, line 82. The baseline determination is described in a copending European Patent Application No. 92 310 422,8. An additional test may also be applied to the histogram operation of step 150. This added test, a boolean test, may be used to assure that a minimum run of black pixels was detected during the analysis of the line. For example, a flag, which is cleared at the start of each branch line analysis, may be set whenever a series of five sequential black pixels are detected along the line. This test would assure that small noise or image artifacts are not recognized as baselines due to a high vertical edge pixel ratio. As an alternative method, it is possible to utilize the total number of black pixels lying along the branch lines to determine the locations of the baselines. Using histogram curve BL, which represents the number of black pixels counted along the branch lines, it is possible to determine which branch lines have the most black pixel intersections. Applying a threshold of the maximum allows the determination of the upper and lower characteristic line pairs for each text line. Hence, the rising and falling portions of the histogram curve BL, constitute the characteristic lines of the text, and the threshold would be used to specifically identify the localized maxima surrounding an intervening minima, thereby enabling identification of the baseline positions which would be used for further processing. More importantly, this alternative approach, illustrated as step 162, may be utilized to identify the upper and lower baselines of a baseline pair, based upon the slope of the BL histogram curve. It is important to note that there is little additional processing associated with the identification step as the histogram information was collected previously during step 150. Once the preliminary characteristic line or baseline pairs are identified, block 162, a verification step, block 164, is executed to verify that the baseline pairs are separated by more than a minimum distance, the minimum distance being established by calculating the average line pair separation for all line pairs in the image. After verification, the valid baseline information is stored by output block 166 for later use by the white line addition and segmentation blocks, 18 and 20, respectively. An important advantage of these baseline determination methods, is that they are highly insensitive to noise or extraneous marks in the interline space. Figure 7 shows the result of the baseline determination on the example image of the sample text, showing that baseline pairs, baseline and topline B n and B n ', respectively, have been located on the image, indicating those portions of the image in which a predominant portion of the text occurs. While some portions of the character ascender strokes are outside the baselines, no detriment to the remainder of the process is noted. Of course, a smaller threshold value might enable the system to capture more of the ascending strokes. With reference again to Figure 1B in conjunction with Figures 8 and 9, the next process step is a word group isolation step. A filter 18 is applied to a copy of the image which results in a filtered image that tends to render the word into blobs distinguishable from one another. The filter is applied with a small window, to each area, to render as black those areas that are partly black. As shown in Figure 8, the blobify function first initializes mask variables which establish the mask size and angle, block 180, and then processes the upper scanline to initialize the data array, block 182. Median filtering is accomplished by sequentially moving the mask window through the image, blocks 184 and 186, and whenever the number of black pixels appearing in the window exceeds a threshold value, the target pixel, about which the window is located, is set to black. Figure 9, which illustrates some examples of the filter process, has a mask window 200 placed over a portion of the image. For example, with approximately a twenty percent threshold and a generally rectangular mask having twenty-one pixels, arranged at an angle approximately equal to the angle of skew previously determined for the text, the result of filtering in window 200 would be the setting of pixel 204 to black. Similarly, window 206, which primarily lies within the intercharacter spacing between the pixel representations of the letters "r" and "o", would cause pixel 208 to be set to black. On the other hand, window 210, which lies in the region between word groups, would not have a sufficient number of black pixels present within the window to cause pixel 212 to be set to black. The size, shape and orientation of mask window 200 is optimized to reduce the filling in between text lines, while maximizing the fill between letters common to a single word. As illustrated by Figure 10, the result of the median filtering is that the relatively small spacing between characters in a word generally becomes inconsequential, and is filled with black pixels. Words become a single connected set of pixels, i.e., no white spaces completely separate characters in a single word. However, the relatively large spacing between symbol strings or between words, is a larger space outside of the ability of the filter to turn into black, and therefore serves to distinguish adjacent symbol strings. With reference now to Figures 7 and 10, it can be seen that the first two words of the sample text, "A" and "practitioner" have been "blobified", as this process is referred to, so that, for example, the "p" of "practitioner" is no longer separated from the "r" of that word. (Compare, Figure 3). Once again, despite the blobifying or blurring of characters, "A" and "practitioner" remain as discrete blobs of connected symbols or words. With reference again to Figure 1B, as an adjunct to this step, white line addition 20, superimposes upon the blobified image of Figure 10 a series of white pixel lines to make certain that lines of text are maintained separately from adjacent lines of text (i.e., no overlapping of the filtered text lines). With reference to Figures 10 and 11, noting the circled areas 258 and 258′, a combination of an ascender and descender has resulted in an interline merging of two words. The text line overlap illustrated in area 258 of Figure 10 is exactly what is eliminated by superimposing the white lines on the blobified or filtered image. This superposition of white lines operation, the outcome of which is illustrated by Figure 11, is carried out by the process illustrated in Figure 12. Generally, white lines WL are added to the image, approximately halfway between adjacent baseline and topline pairs, to assure that there is no cross-text line blobifying. Once again, Figure 11 shows the result of white line addition to the blobified image of Figure 10. Referring now to Figure 12, white line addition block 20 begins by initializing variables in step 280 and subsequently reads in the topline location from the baseline information of the first text line. The topline information is discarded, block 282, and the next baseline and topline locations are popped from the storage stack or list, blocks 284 and 286, respectively. With respect to the image, this baseline-topline pair respectively represents the bottom and top of adjacent text lines. Next, at step 288, the point lying at the center of the pair is located to provide a starting point for the white lines which are drawn from the center of the image in an outward direction. The endpoints of the white lines are calculated in step 290, using the skew angle determined by skew detector 14 of Figure 1B. White lines are drawn or superimposed on the blobified image at step 292, and the process is continued until all text lines have been effectively separated, as controlled by test block 294. With reference again to Figure 1B, as a result of the blobify or median filtering, the position of bounding boxes about each connected set of pixels formed in the blobify step may be determined. Bounding boxes are placed only about those connected components or words that are in a text line lying between the superimposed white lines. The bounding boxes are placed at the orientation of the text line, by identifying the extreme points of each group of connected pixels in the direction of the text line, and in the direction orthogonal to the text line, as opposed to the image coordinate system. Generally, by stepping through all pixels within the image, the bounding boxes of the connected characters can be found, to determine the coordinates of the upper left corner of each box, as well as the length and width of the box. Referring now to Figures 13A and 13B, which detail that procedure, segmentation step 22 begins by placing a white border completely around the filtered image, step 300. This is done to avoid running beyond the bounds of the array of image pixels. Next, pixel and line counters, x and y, respectively, are initialized to the first pixel location inside the border. Calling the ReadPixel procedure, block 304, the pixel color (black or white) is returned and tested in block 306. If the pixel is white, no further processing is necessary and processing would continue at block 322. Otherwise, a PaintComponent procedure is called and begins by storing the location of the black pixel in a queue, block 308. Subsequently, in the copy of the image, the pixel is set to white and the boundaries of the box, surrounding the connected pixels or components, are updated, blocks 310 and 312, respectively. Next, adjoining black pixels are set to white, block 314, and the locations of the black pixels are added to the end of the queue, block 316. At block 318 the queue pointers are tested to determine if the queue is empty. If not empty, the next pixel in the queue is retrieved, block 320, and processing continues at block 312. Otherwise, if the queue is empty, all of the connected black pixels will have been set to white and the box boundaries will reflect a box which encompasses the connected components. Subsequently, the boundaries of the box which encompasses the word segment are verified and may be adjusted to an orthogonal coordinate system oriented with respect to the skew of the text lines, block 322. The looping process continues at block 324, which checks pixel counter x to determine if the end of the scanline.has been reached, and if not, increments the counter at block 326 before continuing the process at block 304. If the end of the scanline has been reached, pixel counter x is reset and scanline counter y is incremented at block 328. Subsequently, block 330 checks the value of scanline counter y to determine if the entire image has been processed. If so, processing is completed. Otherwise, processing continues at block 304 for the first pixel in the new scanline. Thus, as shown in Figure 14, for the word "practitioner" the extremities of the connected character image define the bounding box. Once bounding boxes have been established, it is then possible at this step, to eliminate noise marks from further consideration. Noise marks are determined when: 1) a bounding box corner is outside the array of image pixels; 2) a box spans multiple text lines in the array, or lies completely outside a text line; or 3) boxes are smaller than a reference value ε, in either or both longitudinal or latitudinal dimensions, and are accordingly discarded. Noise marks 70 and 72 and others will be not be considered words. With reference again to Figure 1B, at word shape computer 24, a signal representing the image of a word, or at least a portion thereof, now isolated from its neighbors, is derived. The derived signal is referred to as a word shape contour. The shape contour for each word is determined, as illustrated in Figure 15A, by first moving along the top of each bounding box, and starting with each pixel location along the top of the box, scanning downwards relative to the page orientation, until either a black pixel, or the bottom of the box, is reached. A record of the set of distances d between the top of the box and the black pixel or box bottom is maintained. The set of distances d, accumulated over the length of the box, constitutes the top raw contour of the word shape. Subsequently, a bottom raw contour is produced in a similar manner as illustrated in Figure 15B, for the same word depicted in Figure 15A, by sequentially moving across the bottom of the box, and looking in an upwards direction, for either the first black pixel or the top of the bounding box. Figure 16 is an image of the contour locations as established for the text sample of Figure 2. It is important to note the informational content of Figure 16, where, for the most part, it is relatively easy to recognize the words within the passage by their contours alone. With reference now to Figure 17, at block 100 which preferably operates on the actual image as opposed to the filtered image, which could be used in this step, one or more reference lines are established through each word. In one embodiment, a blackout bar, which may have a finite thickness or a zero thickness is constructed through the word, preferably having an upper limit or reference line at approximately two thirds of the x-height, and a lower limit at approximately one-third of the x height. At contour calculation 102, a set of measurements is derived, for the distance d between the the upper or lower bounding box, to the word, or the nearer of the reference lines. The calculations are made at the resolution of the image. With reference to Figure 18A, where the calculations are illustrated pictorially, it can be seen that the reference lines serve to allow the signal that will ultimately be derived from this step to be defined at every sampling position over the length of the word. In a preferred embodiment, the calculations are actually generated from the contour data previously collected, and are adjusted to limit the distance d with either the upper or lower blackout bar as indicated. In the embodiment shown, measurements are made from the upper line of the bounding box to the upper reference line or the word, although this is not a requirement. Thus, for example, the measurement could alternatively be made from the reference line to either the upper or lower bounding line, or the character. Figure 18B better shows how the set of measurements is used to form the signal output from block 104. The contour is represented as a distance d', relative to the reference line. Calculating the distance relative to the reference line enables scaling of the word shape contours to a common x height, thereby facilitating any subsequent comparison of the shapes. Figures 18C and 18D shows that the sets of d' values can be plotted on a graph to form a one-dimensional signal. In studies of the information delivered by the appearance of English language words, it has been determined that in a majority of cases, words can be identified by viewing only approximately the top third of the image of the word. In other words, the upper portion of the word carries with it much of the information needed for identification thereof. In a significant portion of the remainder of cases, words that are unidentifiable by only the upper third of the image of the word, become identifiable when the identification effort includes the information carried by the lower third of the image of the word. A relatively small class of words requires information about the middle third of the word before identification can be made. It can thus be seen that a stepwise process might be used, which first will derive the upper word shape signal or contour, second will derive the lower word shape signal or contour, and thirdly derive a word shape signal central contour (from the reference line towards the word or bounding box), in a prioritized examination of word shape, as required. In the examples of Figures 18A, 18B, 18C, and 18D, the word "from" is fairly uniquely identifiable from its upper portion only. In the examples of Figures 19A, 19B, 19C and 19D, the word "red" is less uniquely identifiable from its upper portion, since it may be easily confused with the word "rod", and perhaps the word "rad". While the lower portion of the letter "a" may distinguish "red" and "rad", it is doubtful that the lower portion of the letter "o" will distinguish the words "red" from "rod". However, the central portions of red, rad and rod are quite distinct. With reference again to Figure 1B, the next step performed is a comparison at word shape comparator 26. In one embodiment, the comparison is actually several small steps, each of which will be described. With reference to Figure 20, generally, the two word shape signals, one a known word, the other an unknown string of characters, are compared to find out whether or not they are similar. However, in this case, signal R is the upper contour of the word "red", while signal F is the upper contour of the word "from". Actually, relatively few signals could be expected to be exactly identical, given typical distinctions between character fonts, reproduction methods, and scanned image quality. However, the word shape signals to be compared may be scaled with respect to one another, so that they have the same x-heights. This is achieved by determining the x-height of the pair of word shape contours to be compared. Once determined, the ratios of the x-heights are used to determine a scale factor to be applied to one of the contours. As the x-height is a characteristic measurement for fonts, it is used to determine the scaling factor in both the horizontal and vertical directions. Alternatively, the shape signals may be compared without normalization and a weighting factor imposed upon the portion of the measured difference due to the unequal lengths. Furthermore, the amplitude or height of the signals has been normalized to further reduce the impact of the font size on the word shape comparison. Referring next to Figures 21A - 21C, which illustrate details of the ascender/descender normalization operation, each of the shape signals are normalized based upon a common relationship between the ascender and descender heights and the x-height of the text characters. As illustrated, the actual ascender heights of characters printed with supposedly similar font size, or what is now an appropriately scaled font size, may be slightly different. This occurs as a result of type faces or fonts which are small-on-body or large-on-body, implying that similar characters exhibit variations in height across fonts that are the same size, for example 24 point fonts. As an illustration, distance d 1 in Figure 21A represents the difference in ascender height for two occurrences of the letter "h." Likewise, distance d 2 illustrates a similar difference between the heights of the letter "f" in Figure 21B. As illustrated in Figure 21C, the typical character may be broken into three sections, ascender portion 390, x-height portion 392, and descender portion 394. In addition, the relative heights of these sections are illustrated as a, c, and b, respectively. The areas of the contour lying above the x-height are scaled as follows: f ( t )= 1.5 a + c · f ( t ). Similarly, the descenders are scaled by the following equation: f ( t )= 1.5 a + b · f ( t ), where, in both cases, the value used in the numerator (1.5) is arrived at based upon observation of the relationship between ascender or descender heights and the x-height. Also, the portions of the contours which do not represent portions of the text string are removed. These regions lie at the ends of the bounding boxes illustrated in Figure 14. For example, the box surrounding the word "practitioner" in Figure 14 can be seen to extend beyond the actual word image. As further illustrated at the ends of the word "from" in Figures 18A - 18D, the contour does not contain useful information. By removing these regions from the contour shape, less error will be introduced into the comparison operations. Subsequent to the normalization operation, standard signal processing steps can be used to determine the similarity or dissimilarity of the two signals being compared. Alternatively, the following equation may be used: Δ string =√ 0 1 ( f ( x )- g '( x )) 2 dx where Δ string is the difference value between the two signals f(x) is the known signal; and g'(x) is the unknown signal. In a simple determination, the difference could be examined and if it is close to zero, would indicate that there was almost no difference between the two signals. However, the greater the amount of difference, the more likely that the word was not the same as the word to which it was being compared. It is important to note that the embodiments described herein compare the word shape contours using the upper and lower contours for each word in conjunction with one another. This is an implementation specific decision, and is not intended to limit the invention to comparisons using only the top and bottom contours in conjunction with one another. In fact, sufficient information may be contained within the upper contours alone so as to significantly reduce the requirements for a comparison of the lower contours, thereby saving considerable processing effort. The steps of this simplified comparison method, as first contemplated, are illustrated in Figure 22. Beginning at step 410, the contour for the first word shape is retrieved from memory, and subsequently, the second word shape is retrieved by step 412. Next, the centers-of-gravity of the word shapes, defined by the upper and lower contours, are determined and aligned, step 414. The purpose of this step is to align the centers of the word contours to reduce the contour differences that would be attributable solely to any relative shift between the two sets of contours being compared. The center-of-gravity may be determined by summing the areas under the curves (mass) and the distances between the contours (moments) which are then divided to give an indication of the center-of-gravity for the upper and lower contour pair or by other standard means for determining the center-of-gravity for arcs. Once determined for both sets of contour pairs, the relative shift between the pairs is determined, step 416, and the contours are shifted prior to calculating the difference between the contours. The shifting of the contours is necessary to reduce any error associated with the establishment of the word shape boundaries and computation of the word shapes at block 24 of Figure 1B. Step 418 handles those regions lying outside the overlapping range of the shifted contour pairs, determining the difference against a zero amplitude signal in the non-overlapping regions. This is done by summing the squared values of the upper and lower contours at the non-overlapping ends of the contours. Subsequently, the overlapping region of the contours are compared, step 420. The difference in this region is determined as the sum of the squared differences between the upper curves and the lower curves. Next, the values returned from steps 418 and 420 are added to determine a sum of the differences over the complete range defined by the shifted contours. This value may then be used as a relative indication of the similarity between the contour pairs for the two word shapes being compared. An alternative to the center-of-gravity comparison method uses a signal processing operation known as time warping (as described in the article "Performance Tradeoffs in Dynamic Time Warping Algorithms for Isolated Word Recognition", by Myers, Rabiner, and Rosenberg, IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Vol. ASSP-28, No. 6, December 1980, and the book, "Time Warps, String Edits, and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison", by Sankoff and Kruskal, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading, Massachusetts, 1983, Chapters 1 and 4) which may be used to provide for compression and expansion of points along the contours until the best match is made. Then a score is derived based on the amount of difference between the contours being compared and the stretching required to make the contours match. Once again, the score provides a relative indication of the match between the two signals being compared. Using a dynamic warping method, a difference signal d(x) can be obtained, which is representative of the difference between first and second contour signals f(x) and g(x) , respectively (both one-dimensional signals based upon a single independent variable, x). The method includes the steps of: (a) evaluating the value of the first contour signal, f(x 1 ), where x 1 lies within the domain x a through x b ; (b) evaluating the value of the second contour signal, g(x 2 ), where x 2 lies within the domain x c through x d ; (c) calculating a difference value representative of the difference between the value of the first contour signal and the value of the second contour signal; (d) storing the difference value; (e) repeating steps (b) through (d) until signal g(x 2 ) has been evaluated at all points x 2 lying within the domain x c through x d ; (f) setting the value of the difference signal at location x 1 d(x 1 ) , equal to the the smallest stored difference value; and (g) repeating steps (a) through (f) for all values of x 1 lying within the domain x a through x b , thereby defining difference signal d(x) over the domain x a through x b . Referring now to Figure 23, which depicts the general steps of the dynamic warping method, the method relies on the use of a difference array or matrix to record the distances between each point of the first contour and points of the contour to which it is being compared. As illustrated in the figure, the process is similar for all of the measures which may be applied in the comparison. A data structure is used to dynamically control the operation of the various comparison functions. The data structure contains variables which define the measure to be applied to the contours, as well as, other factors that will be used to control the comparison. These factors include: normalization of the contour lengths before comparison; separate comparisons for the upper and lower contours; a centerWeight factor to direct the warping path; a bandwidth to constrain the warp path; a topToBottom ratio which enables the top contour comparison to be weighted more or less with respect to the bottom contour comparison; and a hillToValley ratio to selectively control weighting the contour differences when an unknown contour is being compared to a known or model word shape contour. In general, each measure implements a comparison technique, however, each is optimized for a specific type of dynamic comparison, for example, a slope limited dynamic warp having a non-unitary centerweight and a topToBottom weight greater than one. The first level of selection enables the use of a slope-constrained warping function for comparison, an unconstrained warp, or a simple, non-warped, comparison. Within both of the warp comparison methods, there are both separate comparison functions, where the top and bottom contours are warped independently, and parallel comparison functions, where the warp is applied to both the top and bottom contours simultaneously. In the general embodiment, the dynamic warping process starts by allocating space for the path/distance array, step 450, which will hold the distance values generated during the comparison and warping of one word shape contour with respect to another. In general, this array would be used to identify all possible difference measures for the contours being compared. Subsequent to filling the array elements with difference values, the array would be traversed, from one corner to the diagonally opposite corner, while accumulating the difference values for all elements within the traversal path. The embodiment which has been described optimizes this process somewhat by iteratively filling in the accumulated difference value as the difference values are determined. Essentially, this eliminates the redundant step of traversing the array once all the relative difference values between the contour have been calculated. In a further modification, the large array is eliminated and replaced by a pair of linear arrays that are manipulated to store, retrieve, and update the distance values during the "traversal" of the array. After allocating space, the border regions of the array must be initialized as the process used by all the warping measures is an iterative process using data previously stored in the array for the determination of the cumulative difference between the contours. At step 452, the array borders are initialized. Initialization of the first row of the array entails the determination of the square of the difference between a first point on the the first contour and each point on the second contour. Subsequent to border initialization, the column and row index values, I1 and I2, respectively, are reset to 1 to begin processing the individual, non-border , points along the contours. Processing of the contours proceeds at steps 458 through 464, where the difference in distance between each point along the second contour, with respect to a point on the first contour is calculated. Moreover, this difference, or distance, is calculated and then summed with a previously determined difference value. In addition, some of the previously determined difference values may be weighted differently, for example, in one embodiment weights of the difference values along the array diagonal may be modified by a centerWeight weighting factor. As an illustration, the distance is calculated as the sum of the squares of the differences between a point on the first contour and a point on the second contour, over the upper and lower contours, where the top contour difference is weighted by the topToBottom variable. This distance is used in subsequent iterations to determine the horizontal, vertical and diagonal difference values in the loop beginning at line 137 on page 103. To determine each of these values, the current distance value, represented by rest, would be added to the previous values in the down, left, and down-left array positions, the down-left position value being the diagonal position which is weighted by the centerWeight factor as previously described. Referring to Figure 24A, which illustrates the positional relationship between a previously determined value X, at array location 502, and subsequent array locations, the value X might be added to the difference values of subsequent locations to accumulate the total difference. When calculating the difference value for array location 504, the value in location 502 would be used as the down value. Similarly, when calculating the value in location 506, the value of location 502 would be used as the center-weighted down-left, or diagonal, value. After calculating the three difference values, steps 458, 460, and 462, the process continues by selecting the smallest of the three values, step 464, for insertion into the the current array position, step 466. Subsequently, the process illustrated in Figure 23 continues by determining the differences between the point on the first contour, represented by L1, to points on the second contour, represented by L2. Decision step 468 controls the iterative processing of the points along the second contour by testing for the end of the contour, or swath. In the case of a limiting swath or bandwidth, the domain of one or both of the contour regions being compared is restricted to a subset of the regions over which the contours are defined. If no limit has been reached, processing for the next point would continue at step 458 after the value of I2 was incremented at step 470. Similarly, decision step 472 controls the processing of each point along the first contour, in conjunction with incrementing step 474. Once all the points have been processed with respect to one another, as evidenced by an affirmative response in step 472 indicating that the array has been traversed, the relative difference score, best score, is contained in the farthest diagonal position of the array (L1,L2). Subsequently, the value determined at step 476 is returned as an indication of the dynamically warped difference between the contours being compared. Expressed generally, in a dynamic warping method employing weighting, the difference signal d(x) representative of the difference between the first and second contour signals f(x) and g(x) can be obtained by the steps of: (a) evaluating the value of the first contour signal, f(x m ) , where x m lies within the domain x a through x b ; (b) evaluating the value of the second contour signal, g(x n ) , where x n lies within a subset of the domain x c through x d ; (c) evaluating a difference signal, d(f(x m ),g(x n )) , representative of the difference between the value of the first contour signal and the value of the second contour signal, to determine a difference value; (d) weighting the difference value in accordance with one or more predefined weighting factors, the selection of which is determined by the relationship between the single independent variable values x m and x n ; (e) storing the weighted difference value in a unique memory location within an array of difference values; (f) repeating steps (b) through (e) until signal g(x n ) has been evaluated at all points x n lying within the subset of the domain x c through x d ; (g) repeating steps (a) through (f) for all values of x m lying within the domain x a through x b , thereby defining the difference signal, d(f(x m ),g(x n )) , over the domain x a through x b ; (h) systematically traversing the array of stored difference values, by beginning at array position ( x a , x c ), and finishing at position ( x b , x d ), while accumulating the stored difference values of all array locations along the traversal path; and (i) repeating step (h) for all possible traversal paths, wherein the path resulting in the smallest accumulated difference value is an optimized traversal path, the accumulated value of which is a measure of the difference between the contour signals. The aforedescribed warping process can be optimized by reducing the large two-dimensional array to a pair of linear arrays which are updated as necessary. Due to this modification, the minimum difference, or best score, for the the warp comparison value is found in the last location of the one-dimensional array. Furthermore, the final difference value, dc, may be subsequently normalized to account for the length differences between the two sets of contours being compared. Finally, such a value might subsequently be compared against a threshold or a set of similarly obtained difference values to determine whether the contours are close enough to declare a match between the words, or to determine the best match from a series of word shape comparisons. For example, the difference value might be compared to a predetermined threshold level and, if the value is less than the threshold, it can be determined that the contours being compared are likely to have been generated from word shapes representing identical symbol strings. Alternatively, the difference value might be compared with additional difference values generated during similar comparisons of other word shapes: in that case, the smallest difference measure values can be selected as being indicative of contours which are likely to have been generated from word shapes representing identical symbol strings. In yet another embodiment, the dynamic time warping process previously described may be altered to compare the difference values contained in the difference array to a threshold value on a periodic basis. Upon comparison, the process may be discontinued when it is determined that sufficient difference exists to determine that the contours being compared do not match one another, possibly saving valuable processing time. Moreover, the sequential operation of word shape comparator 26 might be done in conjunction with sequential output from word shape computer 24, thereby enabling the parallel processing of a textual image when searching for a keyword. Having described a basic implementation of the dynamic warping comparison measures, the distinctions of other dynamic warp comparison methods will be briefly described. First, the dynamic warping method previously described may also be implemented with the slope of the the warp path being constrained as it moves across the array, by limiting the set of possible array locations to which the path may proceed. This measure is further illustrated graphically in Figure 24B, where the value of array location 512, X , may be added to only the three subsequent array locations shown. For example, X may be added to array location 514, when considered as the D2L1 value for location 514. The nomenclature used for the variable names within the code listing, and followed in the figure, is as follows: D2L1 refers to the array location which is down 2 rows and left one column, D1L1, refers to the lower left diagonal array location, and D1L2 refers to the array location that is down one column on left 2 rows from the current array location. In a similar manner, X may be added as the D1L2 value for the calculation of the cumulative difference value for array location 516. As is apparent from a comparison of Figures 24A and 24B, the slope constrained warping measure limits, on a local scale, the warping path which can be followed during the generation of the cumulative difference value. The reason for implementing such a constraint is to prevent the warping process from removing, or compressing, a large area of one of the two contours being compared, without imposing a significant "cost" to such a compression. Next, the method previously described with respect to the parallel warping process may also be implemented on only one pair of contours at a time, for example, the upper contours of two word shapes. In general, these measures separately calculate the difference between the top or bottom contours of a pair of wordshapes. The general implementation indicated for the measures in the code shows that these measures are typically used sequentially, first determining the warped difference for the top contours, and then adding to it the warped difference from the bottom contour comparison, resulting in a total difference for the wordshapes. By carrying out the comparison methods described in a "piece-wise" cascaded fashion, further processing benefits may also be derived. More specifically, cascaded comparison would entail, first, utilizing the upper contours of the words being compared to identify a word, or at least narrow the set of possible alternatives and, second, using the lower contour comparison to provide complete identification. It is believed that such an approach to word shape comparison operation 26 would considerably reduce processing time spent on identifying unknown word shapes by comparison to a dictionary of known word shapes, 28, as illustrated in Figure 1B. Important to the cascaded comparison, is the constraint that the top and bottom warps applied to the contours must be relatively equivalent. This requirement arises from the fact that the upper and lower curves have a relationship to a common word, and if this relationship is not maintained during the warp analysis, the accuracy of the comparison will be compromised. Alternatively, the dynamic warping technique may be applied as described, with the addition of a function suitable for accumulating the relative warp applied to the upper and lower curves in achieving the best match. For example, when a known, non-italicized word shape is compared to an unknown word shape, a shift in the warp applied to the upper curve relative to the lower curve could be indicative of an italicized word, however, the length of the warped region will remain the same for the top and bottom warps. Such a technique may prove useful in the identification of important words within a larger body of text, as these words are occasionally italicized for emphasis. One of the control factors which has not been previously described is the bandWidth factor. As implemented, the bandWidth factor controls the relative width of the signal band in which the warping signal will be constrained. More specifically, the band width limitation is implemented by defining a region about the array diagonal in which the warp path which traverses the array is constrained. The constraint is implemented by assigning large values to those areas outside of the band width, so as to make it highly unlikely that the path would exceed the constraint. When the bandWidth factor is implemented, in the case of the previously-mentioned step of evaluating the value of the second contour signal, g(x n ) , the method further includes the step of constraining, as a function of the value of x m and the ratio x b / x d , the allowable range of x n within a subset of values for x n . Another factor which was briefly mentioned is the topToBottomratio. When applied, the value of this variable is used to weight the difference value determined for the top contour warping process. Therefore, use of a number greater than one, will cause the upper contour difference to be weighted more heavily than the lower contour difference. A very large number would effectively eliminate the lower contour difference completely and, likewise, a zero value would eliminate the upper contour difference completely. This factor is generally considered important to enable the upper contour to be weighted in proportion to its information content, as it generally carries more information regarding the word than does the lower contour. The hillToValley ratio, which was also mentioned, is a variable which is usually applied in situations when a known, or model, set of word shape contours is being compared against a set of word shape contours from an unknown image. In exercising this option, the model set of contours is passed as the comparison measure functions. When determining the difference between points on the contours, the comparison functions to determine the sum of the squared difference. The hillToValley ratio is applied to the squared difference whenever it determines that the value of the model contour is less than the contour being compared. The result of applying a hillToValley value greater than one is that the relative "cost" of the difference when the model contour is less than the target contour is smaller than the same difference when the model contour is greater than the target contour. The basis for this type of weighting is that when comparing against a model contour, the comparison should treat those areas of the target contour that are subject to being "filled in" during a scanning or similar digitizing operation with less weight than regions not likely to be filled in, as evidenced by contour positions below the model contour. For instance, the regions where ascenders meet the body of the character are likely to be filled in during scanning, thereby causing the target contour to have a gradual contour in those regions, whereas the model contour would most likely have a defined peak or valley in these regions. Hence, the contour value of the model would be less than the contour value of the target, even though the characters may have been identical. Therefore, the hillToValley variable attempts to minimize the impact to the calculated difference value over these regions. When the hillToValley ratio is utilized in the previously-mentioned method of determining the difference signal d(x) representative of the difference between first and second contour signals f(x) and g(x) , the method comprises the steps of: (a) calculating the value of a difference measure used to represent the relative difference between f(x 1 ) and g(x 2 ) ; and (b) determining whether f(x 1 ) is greater than g(x 2 ) , and if so, multiplying the value determined in step (a) by a predetermined hill-to-valley ratio to be returned as the evaluation of the difference signal, otherwise returning the calculated value as the difference signal. The step of calculating the value of a difference measure may include integrating, over the overlapping regions of the first and second contour signals, a difference value determined by subtracting g(x 2 ) from f(x 1 ) , and squaring the difference. It is important to note that the aforedescribed measures and control factors allow the comparison measures to be conducted in numerous permutations. However, the flexibility which these measures permit is intended to enhance the applicability of the comparison process, so that when information is known about a particular word shape contour, for example, a model contour generated from a computer generated character font string, the measures may place reliance on that information to make the comparisons more robust. A preferred embodiment of the invention is a software implementation designed to be implemented in a computer system, employing one or more microprocessor or arithmetic processing devices for the execution of predefined instructions, to achieve the operations hereinbefore described with respect to processing of the digital signal data. In addition, a method in accordance with the invention may also be achieved using specialized hardware which is designed to implement the operations described herein. Moreover, the method has been described with respect to textual images. However, this method would also be applicable for images that include non-textual image portions as well.

Claims: A method for comparing strings of symbols that form word objects within data defining one or more images to determine a relative measure of similarity between strings, comprising: (A) isolating a word object formed by a first symbol string in data defining an image; (B) deriving a first signal representative of the first string of symbols; (C) deriving a second signal representative of a second string of symbols; and (D) using the first and second signals to obtain a difference measure indicative of the relative similarity between the first and second strings; characterised in that the first signal indicates a set of distances relative to a first set of sampling positions lying on a first line extending through the first symbol string, each distance being determined at a predetermined angle with respect to the first line between a sampling position and a contour of the first string, and in that the second signal indicates a set of distances relative to a second set of sampling positions lying on a second line extending through the second symbol string, each distance being determined at a predetermined angle with respect to the second line between a sampling position and a contour of the second string; the first and second signals representing shapes of the first and second strings; respectively; further characterized in that (D) comprises: (D1) obtaining, for each of a range of the sampling positions, a difference between the distance indicated by the first signal and the distance indicated by the second signal; and (D2) using the differences from (D1) to arrive at the difference measure. A method as claimed in claim 1 in which the sampling positions in each set include each pixel location along a line. A method as claimed in any preceding claim, wherein the second string of symbols forms a word object within the data defining the said image or within data defining a second image, and wherein (C) comprises isolating the word object formed by the second string of symbols in the data defining the said image or in the data defining the second image. A method as claimed in any of claims 1 to 3, wherein the second string of symbols is a known string of symbols. A method as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, further comprising: (E) determining, in response to the difference measure, whether the first and second symbol strings are equivalent. A method as claimed in claim 5, wherein (E) comprises: comparing the difference measure to a predetermined threshold level; and if the difference measure is less than the threshold level, determining that the first and second signals are likely to have been generated from word objects formed by identical symbol strings. A method as claimed in claim 5, wherein (E) comprises: comparing the difference measure with additional difference measures generated during similar comparisons of other strings of symbols within the data defining the image; and selecting the smallest difference measure values as being indicative of signals which are likely to have been generated from word objects formed by identical symbol strings. A method as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, in which (D) comprises: measuring a characteristic dimension for the first symbol string; measuring the characteristic dimension for the second symbol string; calculating a scaling ratio by dividing the first characteristic dimension by the second characteristic dimension; and scaling, in two-dimensions, the second signal in accordance with the scaling ratio, to produce a new second signal for subsequent comparison to the first signal. A method as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, wherein (B) comprises: (B1) normalizing the first signal in accordance with a common height dimension measured from the first symbol string. A method as claimed in claim 9, wherein (B1) comprises: measuring the x-height for the first symbol string; measuring the ascender/descender height for the first symbol string as the distance by which symbols having ascending/descending portions protrude, respectively, above the x-height or below a baseline determined for the first symbol string; calculating an ascender/descender normalization ratio by dividing a predetermined ascender/descender factor by the sum of the x-height and the ascender/descender height; and normalizing the first signal by applying the ascender/descender normalization ratio for those regions of the first signal which represent symbols having, respectively, ascenders exceeding the x-height or descenders below the baseline. A method as claimed in any preceding claim, wherein (D1) obtains a difference signal, (D1) comprising: finding a center of gravity for the arc formed by the first signal: finding a center of gravity for the arc formed by the second signal; aligning the centers of gravity for the first and second signals to determine a relative shift between the starting positions of the signals; identifying, at the extremities of the signals, the locations of the non-overlapping regions of the signals; defining, within the non-overlapping regions where only one signal is defined, the difference signal as the difference between the signal defined therein and a predetermined constant value; and defining, within the overlapping region where both signals are defined, the difference signal as the difference between the signals defined therein. A method as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 10, wherein the first and second signals, f(x) and g(x), respectively, are both one-dimensional signals based upon a single independent variable, x , and wherein (D1) obtains a difference signal, d(x) , representative of the difference between the first and second signals, (D1) comprising: (a) evaluating the value of the first signal, f(x 1 ) , where x 1 lies within the domain x a through x b ; (b) evaluating the value of the second signal, g(x 2 ) , where x 2 lies within the domain x c through x d ; (c) calculating a difference value representative of the difference between the value of the first signal and the value of the second signal; (d) storing the difference value; (e) repeating (b) through (d) until signal g(x 2 ) has been evaluated at all points x 2 lying within the domain x c through x d ; (f) setting the value of the difference signal at location x 1 , d(x 1 ) , equal to the the smallest stored difference value; and (g) repeating (a) through (f) for all values of x 1 lying within the domain x a through x b , thereby defining difference signal d(x) over the domain x a through x b . A method as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 10, wherein the first and second signals, f(x) and g(x) , respectively, are both one-dimensional signals based upon a single independent variable, x , and wherein (D1) comprises: (a) evaluating the value of the first signal, f(x m ) , where x m lies within the domain x a through x b ; (b) evaluating the value of the second signal, g(x n ), where x n lies within a subset of the domain x c through x d , (c) evaluating a difference signal, d(f(x m ),g(x n )), representative of the difference between the value of the first signal and the value of the second signal, to determine a difference value; (d) weighting the difference value in accordance with one or more predefined weighting factors, the selection of which is determined by the relationship between the single independent variable values x m and x n ; (e) storing the weighted difference value in a unique memory location within an array of difference values; (f) repeating (b) through (e) until signal g(x n ) has been evaluated at all points x n lying within the subset of the domain x c through x d ; (g) repeating (a) through (f) for all values of x m lying within the domain x a through x b , thereby defining the difference signal, d(f(x m ),g(x n )) , over the domain x a through x b ; (h) systematically traversing the array of stored difference values, by beginning at array position (x a ,x c ) , and finishing at position (x b ,x d ) , while accumulating the stored difference values of all array locations along the traversal path; and (i) repeating (h) for all possible traversal paths, wherein the path resulting in the smallest accumulated difference value is an optimized traversal path, the accumulated value of which is a measure of the difference between the contour signals. A method as claimed in claim 13, wherein (h) comprises: constraining the relative slope of any segment of the traversal path, by limiting the set of possible array locations to which the traversal path may proceed. A method as claimed in claim 13 or claim 14, wherein (b) comprises: constraining, as a function of the value of x m and the ratio x b /x d , the allowable range of x n within a subset of values for x n . A method as claimed in any one of claims 12 to 15, wherein (c) comprises: (c1) calculating the value of a difference measure used to represent the relative difference between the evaluated value of the first signal from (a) and the evaluated value of the second signal from (b); and (c2) determining whether the evaluated value of the first signal is greater than the evaluated value of the second signal, and if so, multiplying the value calculated in (c1) by a predetermined hill-to-valley ratio to be returned as the evaluation of the difference signal, otherwise returning the calculated value as the difference signal. A method as claimed in claim 16, wherein (c1) comprises: integrating, over the overlapping regions of the first and second signals, a difference value determined by subtracting the evaluated value of the second signal from the evaluated value of the first signal, and squaring the difference. A method for determining the relevance, defined by the number of common words appearing in both, of two documents, said documents being represented as arrays of image data, comprising: comparing each of the strings of symbols that form word objects in the first array with each of the strings of symbols that form word objects in the second array in accordance with the method of any preceding claim; determining the number of symbol string pairs having difference measures below a predetermined threshold; and based upon said number, determining what proportion of the words contained in the two documents were similar, thereby producing an indication of the relevance of the two documents. A method according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the set of distances indicated by the first signal are measured perpendicularly with respect to the first line, and wherein the set of distances indicated by the second signal are measured perpendicularly with respect to the second line. Apparatus for determining the equivalency of strings of symbols which form word objects within data defining one or more images to determine a relative measure of the similarity between the symbol strings, comprising: isolation means (12) for isolating a word object formed by a first symbol string in data defining an image; signal deriving means (24) for deriving a first signal representative of the first symbol string and for deriving a second signal representative of a second string of symbols; and comparison means (26) for using the first and second signals to obtain a difference measure indicative of the relative similarity between the first and second strings; characterised in that the first signal indicates a set of distances relative to a first set of sampling positions lying on a first line extending through the first symbol string, each distance being determined at a predetermined angle with respect to the first line between a sampling position and a contour of the first string, and in that the second signal indicates a set of distances relative to a second set of sampling positions lying on a second line extending through the second symbol string, each distance being determined at a predetermined angle with respect to the second line between a sampling position and a contour of the second string; the first and second signals representing shapes of the first and second strings, respectively; further characterised in that the comparison means (26) obtains, for each of a range of the sampling positions, a difference between the distance indicated by the first signal and the distance indicated by the second signal; the comparison means (26) using the differences to arrive at the difference measure. Apparatus according to claim 20, wherein the set of distances indicated by the first signal are measured perpendicularly with respect to the first line, and wherein the set of distances indicated by the second signal are measured perpendicularly with respect to the second line.

Inventors: HOPCROFT MICHAEL J, HUTTENLOCHER DANIEL P, HOPCROFT, MICHAEL J., HUTTENLOCHER, DANIEL P.
Applicants: XEROX CORP, XEROX CORPORATION
Application year: 1992
Main classification: G06K9
IPC codes: G06K9, G06T7