Handwritten and Printed Text Segmentation: A Signature Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While analyzing scanned documents, handwritten text can overlap with printed text. This overlap causes difficulties during the optical character recognition (OCR) and digitization process of documents, and subsequently, hurts downstream NLP tasks. Prior research either focuses solely on the binary classification of handwritten text or performs a three-class segmentation of the document, i.e., recognition of handwritten, printed, and background pixels. This approach results in the assignment of overlapping handwritten and printed pixels to only one of the classes, and thus, they are not accounted for in the other class. Thus, in this research, we develop novel approaches to address the challenges of handwritten and printed text segmentation. Our objective is to recover text from different classes in their entirety, especially enhancing the segmentation performance on overlapping sections. To support this task, we introduce a new dataset, SignaTR6K, collected from real legal documents, as well as a new model architecture for the handwritten and printed text segmentation task. Our best configuration outperforms prior work on two different datasets by 17.9% and 7.3% on IoU scores. The SignaTR6K dataset is accessible for download via the following link: https://forms.office.com/r/2a5RDg7cAY.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".