MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126175075 · doi:10.18280/isi.301220

A Hybrid U-Net–GAN Framework for Restoring Broken Kannada Handwritten Characters

2025· article· W7126175075 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chandravva Hebbi, H. R. Mamatha

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Intersection (aeronautics)Character recognitionField (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Restoring broken or degraded handwritten characters is a major obstacle in optical character recognition (OCR) and the digital preservation of historical manuscripts.In this paper, we propose a hybrid framework named U-Net + Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) for Kannada Restoration (UNGAN-KR) for broken handwritten characters.It integrates the best of both encoder-decoder structural reconstruction and adversarial refinement to ensure both pixel-level fidelity and perceptual realism.The U-Net restores broken strokes while ensuring preservation of character structure and the GAN discriminator promotes natural handwritten textures.We evaluated the framework on a dataset of 71,149 handwritten Kannada characters using multiple metrics of accuracy.The experimental results show that our proposed framework achieves an accuracy of 97.8% with improvements in perceptual quality, and outperforms benchmarks like Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) autoencoders, standard U-Net, and GAN-based inpainting.Ablation studies show that the integration of U-Net and GAN provides hybrid enhancements that are important for reconstruction accuracy.Thus, the framework is suitable for pre-processing data and digital sustainable archiving and the automated restoration of degraded Kannada manuscripts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207