Try : Insurtech, Application Development

AgriTech(1)

Augmented Reality(20)

Clean Tech(8)

Customer Journey(17)

Design(44)

Solar Industry(8)

User Experience(67)

Edtech(10)

Events(34)

HR Tech(3)

Interviews(10)

Life@mantra(11)

Logistics(5)

Strategy(18)

Testing(9)

Android(48)

Backend(32)

Dev Ops(11)

Enterprise Solution(29)

Technology Modernization(8)

Frontend(29)

iOS(43)

Javascript(15)

AI in Insurance(38)

Insurtech(66)

Product Innovation(57)

Solutions(22)

E-health(12)

HealthTech(24)

mHealth(5)

Telehealth Care(4)

Telemedicine(5)

Artificial Intelligence(146)

Bitcoin(8)

Blockchain(19)

Cognitive Computing(7)

Computer Vision(8)

Data Science(21)

FinTech(51)

Banking(7)

Intelligent Automation(27)

Machine Learning(47)

Natural Language Processing(14)

expand Menu Filters

Tabular Data Extraction from Invoice Documents

5 minutes, 12 seconds read

The task of extracting information from tables is a long-running problem statement in the world of machine learning and image processing. Although the latest accomplishments in the field of deep learning have seen a lot of success, tabular data extraction still remains a challenge due to the vast amount of ways in which tables are represented both visually and structurally. Below are some of the examples: 

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Invoice Documents

Many companies process their bills in the form of invoices which contain tables that hold information about the items along with their prices and quantities. This information is generally required to be stored in databases while these invoices get processed.

Traditionally, this information is required to be hand filled into a database software however, this approach has some drawbacks:

1. The whole process is time consuming.

2. Certain errors might get induced during the data entry process.

3. Extra cost of manual data entry.

 An invoice automation system can be deployed to address these shortcomings. The idea is to upload the invoice document and the system will read and generate the tabular information in the digital format making the whole process faster and more cost-effective for companies.

Fig. 6

Fig. 6 shows a sample invoice that contains some regular invoice details such as Invoice No, Invoice Date, Company details, and two tables holding transaction information. Now, our goal is to extract the information present in the two tables.

Tabular Information

The problem of extracting tables from invoices can be condensed into 2 main subtasks.

1. Table Detection

2. Tabular Structure Extraction.

 What is Table Detection?

 Table Detection is the process of identifying and locating tables that are present in a document, usually an image. There are multiple ways to detect tables in an image. Some of the approaches make use of image processing toolkits like OpenCV while some of the other approaches use statistical models on features extracted from the documents such as Text Position and Text Characteristics. Recently more deep learning approaches have been used to detect tables using trained neural networks similar to the ones used in Object Detection.

What is Table Structure Extraction?

Table Structure Extraction is the process of extracting the tabular information once the boundaries of the table are detected through Table Detection. The information within the rows and columns is then extracted and transferred to the desired format, usually CSV or Excel file.

Table Detection using Faster RCNN

Faster RCNN is a neural network model that comes from the RCNN family. It is the successor of Fast RCNN created by Ross Girshick in 2015. The name Faster RCNN is to signify an improvement over the previous model both in terms of training speed and detection speed. 

To read more about the model framework, one can access the paper Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks.

 There are many other object detection model architectures that are available for use today. Each model comes with certain advantages and disadvantages in terms of prediction accuracy, model parameter size, inference speed, etc.

For the task of detecting tables in invoice documents, we will select the Faster RCNN model with FPN(Feature Pyramid Network) as a feature extraction network. The model is pre-trained on the ImageNet corpus using ResNET 101 architecture. The ImageNet corpus is a public dataset that consists of more than 20,000 image categories of everyday objects.  We will therefore make use of a Pytorch framework to train and test the model.

The above mentioned model gives us a fast inference time and a high Mean Average Precision. It is preferred for cases where a quick real time detection is desired.

First, the model is to be trained using public datasets for Table Detection such as Marmot and UNLV datasets. Next, we further fine-tune the model with our custom labeled dataset. For the purpose of labeling, we will follow the COCO annotation format.

Once trained, the model displayed an accuracy close to 86% on our custom dataset. There are certain scenarios where the model fails to locate the tables such as cases containing watermarks and/or overlapping texts. Tables without borders are also missed in a few instances. However, the model has shown its ability to learn from examples and detect tables in multiple different invoice documents. 

Fig. 7

After running inference on the sample invoice from Fig 6, we can see two table boundaries being detected by the model in Fig 7. The first table gets detected with 100% accuracy and the second table is detected with 99% accuracy.

Table Structure Extraction

Once the boundaries of the table are detected by the model, an OCR (Optical Character Reader) mechanism is used to extract the text within the boundaries. The text is then processed using the information that is part of a unique table.

We were able to extract the correct structure of the table, including its headers and line items using logics derived from the invoices. The difficulty of this process depends on the type of invoice format at hand.

There are multiple challenges that one may encounter while building an algorithm to extract structure. Some of them are:

  1. The span of some table columns may overlap making it difficult to determine the boundaries between columns.
  2. The fonts and sizes present within tables may vary from one table to another. The algorithm should be able to accomodate for this variation.
  3. The tables might get split into two pages and detecting the continuation of a table might be challenging.

Certain deep learning approaches have also been published recently to determine the structure of a table. However, training them on custom datasets still remains a challenge. 

Fig 8

The final result is then stored in a CSV file and can be edited or stored according to one’s convenience as shown in Fig 8 which displays the first table information.

Conclusion

The deep learning approach to extracting information from structured documents is a step in the right direction. With high accuracy and low running time, the systems can only learn to perform better with more data. The recent and upcoming advancements in computer vision approaches have made processes such as invoice automation significantly accessible and robust.

About the author:

Prateek Sethi is a Data Scientist working at Mantra Labs. His work involves leveraging Artificial Intelligence to create data-driven solutions. Apart from his work he takes a keen interest in football and exploring the outdoors.

Further Reading:

Cancel

Knowledge thats worth delivered in your inbox

Lake, Lakehouse, or Warehouse? Picking the Perfect Data Playground

By :

In 1997, the world watched in awe as IBM’s Deep Blue, a machine designed to play chess, defeated world champion Garry Kasparov. This moment wasn’t just a milestone for technology; it was a profound demonstration of data’s potential. Deep Blue analyzed millions of structured moves to anticipate outcomes. But imagine if it had access to unstructured data—Kasparov’s interviews, emotions, and instinctive reactions. Would the game have unfolded differently?

This historic clash mirrors today’s challenge in data architectures: leveraging structured, unstructured, and hybrid data systems to stay ahead. Let’s explore the nuances between Data Warehouses, Data Lakes, and Data Lakehouses—and uncover how they empower organizations to make game-changing decisions.

Deep Blue’s triumph was rooted in its ability to process structured data—moves on the chessboard, sequences of play, and pre-defined rules. Similarly, in the business world, structured data forms the backbone of decision-making. Customer transaction histories, financial ledgers, and inventory records are the “chess moves” of enterprises, neatly organized into rows and columns, ready for analysis. But as businesses grew, so did their need for a system that could not only store this structured data but also transform it into actionable insights efficiently. This need birthed the data warehouse.

Why was Data Warehouse the Best Move on the Board?

Data warehouses act as the strategic command centers for enterprises. By employing a schema-on-write approach, they ensure data is cleaned, validated, and formatted before storage. This guarantees high accuracy and consistency, making them indispensable for industries like finance and healthcare. For instance, global banks rely on data warehouses to calculate real-time risk assessments or detect fraud—a necessity when billions of transactions are processed daily, tools like Amazon Redshift, Snowflake Data Warehouse, and Azure Data Warehouse are vital. Similarly, hospitals use them to streamline patient care by integrating records, billing, and treatment plans into unified dashboards.

The impact is evident: according to a report by Global Market Insights, the global data warehouse market is projected to reach $30.4 billion by 2025, driven by the growing demand for business intelligence and real-time analytics. Yet, much like Deep Blue’s limitations in analyzing Kasparov’s emotional state, data warehouses face challenges when encountering data that doesn’t fit neatly into predefined schemas.

The question remains—what happens when businesses need to explore data outside these structured confines? The next evolution takes us to the flexible and expansive realm of data lakes, designed to embrace unstructured chaos.

The True Depth of Data Lakes 

While structured data lays the foundation for traditional analytics, the modern business environment is far more complex, organizations today recognize the untapped potential in unstructured and semi-structured data. Social media conversations, customer reviews, IoT sensor feeds, audio recordings, and video content—these are the modern equivalents of Kasparov’s instinctive reactions and emotional expressions. They hold valuable insights but exist in forms that defy the rigid schemas of data warehouses.

Data lake is the system designed to embrace this chaos. Unlike warehouses, which demand structure upfront, data lakes operate on a schema-on-read approach, storing raw data in its native format until it’s needed for analysis. This flexibility makes data lakes ideal for capturing unstructured and semi-structured information. For example, Netflix uses data lakes to ingest billions of daily streaming logs, combining semi-structured metadata with unstructured viewing behaviors to deliver hyper-personalized recommendations. Similarly, Tesla stores vast amounts of raw sensor data from its autonomous vehicles in data lakes to train machine learning models.

However, this openness comes with challenges. Without proper governance, data lakes risk devolving into “data swamps,” where valuable insights are buried under poorly cataloged, duplicated, or irrelevant information. Forrester analysts estimate that 60%-73% of enterprise data goes unused for analytics, highlighting the governance gap in traditional lake implementations.

Is the Data Lakehouse the Best of Both Worlds?

This gap gave rise to the data lakehouse, a hybrid approach that marries the flexibility of data lakes with the structure and governance of warehouses. The lakehouse supports both structured and unstructured data, enabling real-time querying for business intelligence (BI) while also accommodating AI/ML workloads. Tools like Databricks Lakehouse and Snowflake Lakehouse integrate features like ACID transactions and unified metadata layers, ensuring data remains clean, compliant, and accessible.

Retailers, for instance, use lakehouses to analyze customer behavior in real time while simultaneously training AI models for predictive recommendations. Streaming services like Disney+ integrate structured subscriber data with unstructured viewing habits, enhancing personalization and engagement. In manufacturing, lakehouses process vast IoT sensor data alongside operational records, predicting maintenance needs and reducing downtime. According to a report by Databricks, organizations implementing lakehouse architectures have achieved up to 40% cost reductions and accelerated insights, proving their value as a future-ready data solution.

As businesses navigate this evolving data ecosystem, the choice between these architectures depends on their unique needs. Below is a comparison table highlighting the key attributes of data warehouses, data lakes, and data lakehouses:

FeatureData WarehouseData LakeData Lakehouse
Data TypeStructuredStructured, Semi-Structured, UnstructuredBoth
Schema ApproachSchema-on-WriteSchema-on-ReadBoth
Query PerformanceOptimized for BISlower; requires specialized toolsHigh performance for both BI and AI
AccessibilityEasy for analysts with SQL toolsRequires technical expertiseAccessible to both analysts and data scientists
Cost EfficiencyHighLowModerate
ScalabilityLimitedHighHigh
GovernanceStrongWeakStrong
Use CasesBI, ComplianceAI/ML, Data ExplorationReal-Time Analytics, Unified Workloads
Best Fit ForFinance, HealthcareMedia, IoT, ResearchRetail, E-commerce, Multi-Industry
Conclusion

The interplay between data warehouses, data lakes, and data lakehouses is a tale of adaptation and convergence. Just as IBM’s Deep Blue showcased the power of structured data but left questions about unstructured insights, businesses today must decide how to harness the vast potential of their data. From tools like Azure Data Lake, Amazon Redshift, and Snowflake Data Warehouse to advanced platforms like Databricks Lakehouse, the possibilities are limitless.

Ultimately, the path forward depends on an organization’s specific goals—whether optimizing BI, exploring AI/ML, or achieving unified analytics. The synergy of data engineering, data analytics, and database activity monitoring ensures that insights are not just generated but are actionable. To accelerate AI transformation journeys for evolving organizations, leveraging cutting-edge platforms like Snowflake combined with deep expertise is crucial.

At Mantra Labs, we specialize in crafting tailored data science and engineering solutions that empower businesses to achieve their analytics goals. Our experience with platforms like Snowflake and our deep domain expertise makes us the ideal partner for driving data-driven innovation and unlocking the next wave of growth for your enterprise.

Cancel

Knowledge thats worth delivered in your inbox

Loading More Posts ...
Go Top
ml floating chatbot