AI paper finds cut-paste synthetic data fails for Indian cheque field localization
New research releases 112 annotations and 295 synthetic cheques, but baseline outperforms augmentation.
Jaganadh Gopinadhan's new paper tackles a practical bottleneck in automated cheque processing: localizing key fields (date, legal amount, IFSC code, account number, signature, and payee name) in Indian bank cheques. The IDRBT Cheque Image Dataset—the only public collection of Indian cheques—lacked field annotations and had unclear redistribution terms. Gopinadhan addresses this by releasing six-field bounding-box annotations for all 112 real cheques (keyed to original filenames to respect IDRBT terms) and generating 295 fully redistributable synthetic images via a cut-paste pipeline that composites real field patches onto content-erased, bank-specific canvas templates. Both resources are available on Hugging Face Hub under permissive licenses.
The baseline test delivers a sobering surprise. A ResNet-50 direct-regression model predicting all six fields in one forward pass was compared against a no-learning baseline that simply predicts each field's mean training box. That trivial baseline already achieves 0.691 mean IoU and 80% accuracy at IoU ≥ 0.5. After accounting for seed variance and training compute, the synthetic-augmented model failed to outperform the real-only model on any aggregate metric—a strong negative result. The paper concludes that appearance-only augmentation is ineffective for fixed-layout documents and argues for layout-varying synthesis. This cautionary finding is fully reported as a reusable resource for the computer vision community.
- Released bounding-box annotations for six fields across all 112 real Indian bank cheques in the IDRBT dataset.
- Generated 295 synthetic cheque images via cut-paste compositing, with annotations carried forward from source patches.
- Baseline of predicting mean training box achieves 0.691 mIoU and 80% accuracy at IoU≥0.5; synthetic augmentation yields no measurable improvement.
Why It Matters
Important negative result: cut-paste synthetic data fails for rigid layouts, urging layout-varying augmentation strategies.