Handwritten Word Recognition using Deep Learning Approach: A Novel Way of Generating Handwritten Words
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A handwritten word recognition system comes with issues such as-lack of large and diverse datasets. It is necessary to resolve such issues since millions of official documents can be digitized by training deep learning models using a large and diverse dataset. Due to the lack of data availability, the trained model does not give the expected result. Thus, it has a high chance of showing poor results. This paper proposes a novel way of generating diverse handwritten word images using handwritten characters. The idea of our project is to train the BiLSTM-CTC architecture with generated synthetic handwritten words. The whole approach shows the process of generating two types of large and diverse handwritten word datasets: overlapped and non-overlapped. Since handwritten words also have issues like overlapping between two characters, we have tried to put it into our experimental part. We have also demonstrated the process of recognizing handwritten documents using the deep learning model. For the experiments, we have targeted the Bangla language, which lacks the handwritten word dataset, and can be followed for any language. Our approach is less complex and less costly than traditional GAN models. Finally, we have evaluated our model using Word Error Rate (WER), accuracy, f1-score, precision, and recall metrics. The model gives 39% WER score, 92% percent accuracy, and 92% percent f1 scores using non-overlapped data and 63% percent WER score, 83% percent accuracy, and 85% percent f1 scores using overlapped data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it