Papers › Tokenization vs. Augmentation: A Systematic Study of Writer Variance in IMU-Based...

Tokenization vs. Augmentation: A Systematic Study of Writer Variance in IMU-Based Online Handwriting Recognition

25 Feb 2026arXiv:2603.16883added by Syntology

Jindong Li, Dario Zanca, Vincent Christlein, Tim Hamann, Jens Barth, Peter Kämpf, Björn Eskofier

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Inertial measurement unit-based online handwriting recognition enables the recognition of input signals collected across different writing surfaces but remains challenged by uneven character distributions and inter-writer variability. In this work, we systematically investigate two strategies to address these issues: subword tokenization and concatenation-based data augmentation. Our experiments on the OnHW-Words500 dataset reveal a clear dichotomy between handling inter-writer and intra-writer variance. On the writer-independent split, structural abstraction via Bigram tokenization significantly improves generalization to unseen writing styles, reducing the word error rate (WER) from 15.40% to 12.99%. In contrast, on the writer-dependent split, tokenization degrades performance due to vocabulary distribution shifts between the training and validation sets. Instead, our proposed concatenation-based data augmentation acts as a powerful regularizer, reducing the character error rate by 34.5% and the WER by 25.4%. Further analysis shows that short, low-level tokens benefit model performance and that the performance gains from concatenation-based data augmentation surpass those achieved by proportionally extended training. These findings reveal a clear variance-dependent effect: subword tokenization primarily mitigates inter-writer stylistic variability, whereas concatenation-based data augmentation effectively compensates for intra-writer distributional sparsity.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

2 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 2 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from jindongli24/TVA. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2603.16883, was issued in March 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections