MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125409899 · doi:10.18280/mmep.121207

A Novel Swarm-Based Hybridization of Puma Optimizer and Crested Porcupine Algorithm for Complex Handwriting Recognition in Writer Identification

2025· article· W7125409899 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asmaa N. Khaleel, Raya akram hamdi, Husham Y. A. Alameen

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorcupineIdentification (biology)PumaHandwritingPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate handwriting recognition is a challenging problem, owing to variability in handwriting styles, distortions in writing patterns, and noise in handwritten documents.These challenges are even more severe in scripts like Devanagari and Arabic, which have complex character forms and high visual similarity among classes, requiring strong feature extraction and semantic knowledge.To address these challenges, we have developed a novel deep-learning-based handwriting recognition system that preserves the intrinsic writing dynamics and recognizes hierarchical spatial cues through multilevel abstraction and attention-driven encoding.Our framework synergistically integrates a Residual Abstraction Block, Spatial Context Encoder, Spatial Attention Generator, and Hierarchical Capsule Encoding Block to capture fine-grained spatial dependencies and contextual semantics efficiently.To further improve efficiency, we propose a hybrid puma-crested porcupine optimizer for Feature Reduction (FR), which significantly reduces the model's complexity without compromising accuracy.Extensive experiments on the Devanagari and KHATT datasets prove the effectiveness of our method.Our proposed model achieves superior recognition accuracy of 98.94% (with FR) and 93.28% (without FR) on Devanagari, and 97.36% (with FR) and 91.91% (without FR) on KHATT, outperforming various baseline methods.These findings demonstrate the robustness of our architecture in achieving high accuracy, compactness, and resilience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207