Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Bridging Online and Offline Handwriting via Differentiable Physical Rendering

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A six-parameter differentiable brush renderer lets one framework generate stroke trajectories, stylized images, and robot-executable handwriting.

desk verdict A compact differentiable brush renderer that shows real but modest gains on real handwriting images, though the claimed physical bridge to real handwriting rests on synthetic-loop evaluation and an uncalibrated pressure proxy. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03198 v1 pith:LQWXT2SL submitted 2026-08-04 cs.CV cs.RO

Seonmi Park , Seunghyun Shin , Vihaan Misra , Dongmin Shin , Ukcheol Shin , Jean Oh , Hae-Gon Jeon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.RO
keywords onlinehandwritingofflinedifferentiablerenderingbrushmodelstroketrajectorydiffusionmodelsroboticcalligraphygeneration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a six-parameter physical brush model, wrapped in a differentiable renderer, is enough to bridge online handwriting (stroke trajectories) and offline handwriting (pixel images) within a single framework. The renderer turns any stroke sequence into an image using a velocity-derived pressure proxy, a pressure-dependent footprint, and ink-opacity rules, and because every step is differentiable, gradients can flow from pixels back to trajectory coordinates. Around this renderer the authors build a text-to-stroke generator, a brush-parameter observer, and a diffusion-based refiner, and they train these on a synthetic paired dataset made by rendering existing online trajectories with sampled brush parameters onto real backgrounds. If the claim holds, online and offline handwriting generation stop being separate problems: one model would output an executable trajectory, a rendered image, and a refined realistic image, which matters for font design, data augmentation, and robotic calligraphy.

What carries the argument

The differentiable brush renderer $\mathcal{R}$, parameterized by $\theta = (w_{\mathrm{base}}, k_{\mathrm{spread}}, \rho_{\mathrm{ink}}, \sigma_{\mathrm{sharp}}, p_{\min}, p_{\max})$, is the load-bearing object. For each stroke segment it computes a pressure proxy $p_t$ from inverse writing speed, an effective width $w_t = w_{\mathrm{base}} + k_{\mathrm{spread}} p_t$, a footprint kernel $K_t(q) = \max(0, 1 - \hat{d}_t(q)^\gamma)$ with $\gamma$ controlled by $\sigma_{\mathrm{sharp}}$, and an ink opacity $O_t = 1 - \exp(-\rho_{\mathrm{ink}} p_t)$; per-segment $\alpha$ maps are combined by maximum composition. Because every operation is differentiable, $\mathcal{R}$ can be placed between a stroke

What would settle it

Collect paired trajectory-image data from humans writing on a pressure-sensitive tablet with a camera, and test whether (a) the velocity-derived pressure proxy correlates with measured pressure, and (b) trajectories predicted by the stroke generator, when re-rendered, reproduce the real ink appearance; if either fails, the bridge is a synthetic-domain-only construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the writing process can be compressed into six scalar brush parameters, $\theta = (w_{\mathrm{base}}, k_{\mathrm{spread}}, \rho_{\mathrm{ink}}, \sigma_{\mathrm{sharp}}, p_{\min}, p_{\max})$, and that a renderer $\mathcal{R}$ built from them maps a stroke sequence $S$ to a raster image $I_{\mathrm{rend}}$ differentiably. The renderer estimates pressure from writing speed with the inverse proxy $p^{\mathrm{proxy}}_t = p_{\min} + (p_{\max} - p_{\min})(1 - \tilde{v}_t)$, deforms the stroke footprint linearly via $w_t = w_{\mathrm{base}} + k_{\mathrm{spread}} p_t$, describes ink deposition with opacity $O_t = 1 - \exp(-\rho_{\mathrm{ink}} p_t)$, and composites overlappin

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that online trajectories rendered through the six-parameter brush model with its velocity-derived pressure proxy, composited onto real backgrounds, make a faithful enough proxy for real paired trajectory-image data that the learned generators and observers transfer to real handwriting and robotic writing—a premise the paper itself softens in its Limitations by calling the parameters renderer-level surrogates rather than physical quantities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One trained framework outputs a stroke trajectory, a directly rendered image, and a diffusion-refined image from the same text and style input, so offline realism and online executability are no longer separate generation tasks.
  • Existing online trajectory datasets (IAM-OnDB, CASIA-OLHWDB) become sources of paired trajectory-image training data, lowering the barrier to future joint models.
  • Using the rendered image as a structural prior consistently improves FID and BFID of diffusion baselines (One-DM, DiffPen) on both IAM and CVL, so the physical prior transfers across generator backbones and datasets.
  • The brush parameter observer extracts interpretable brush settings (width, ink density, edge sharpness) from style images, which can directly guide physical tool selection and Z-axis pressure control in robotic calligraphy.
  • Word-level trajectories can be composed into sentence-level sequences with fixed offsets, so the renderer's utility extends beyond the word-level training setup.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same six-parameter bottleneck could serve as a compact, physically interpretable style embedding for tasks beyond generation, such as writer style comparison or OCR data augmentation, where the explicit meaning of each parameter is a bonus over opaque deep features.
  • The inverse speed-pressure assumption is empirically testable: if pressure-sensitive tablets show that human writers do not systematically press harder when writing slowly, the renderer's pressure channel would need to be replaced by a learned or measured estimator, while the rest of the pipeline could remain intact.
  • Because the renderer is differentiable and low-dimensional, it can in principle be inverted to recover stroke trajectories from offline images, enabling trajectory extraction from scanned or historical handwriting—a direction the paper motivates but does not implement.
  • The maximum-composition rule encodes a physical prior about ink accumulation that could be injected into diffusion or GAN models as an inductive bias, potentially helping them render self-intersecting strokes without explicit renderer guidance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified online–offline handwriting generation framework built around a compact differentiable brush renderer R. The renderer maps an online stroke sequence S and six brush parameters θ to a raster image I_rend, using a velocity-derived pressure proxy, pressure-dependent stroke width, ink opacity, and max-composition blending (Sec. 3). The renderer is used to synthesize a large paired dataset D_syn from online trajectory data (IAM-OnDB, CASIA-OLHWDB), on which a text-to-stroke generator G and a brush parameter observer O are trained (Sec. 4). The rendered image is also used as a structural prior for zero-shot refinement by pretrained diffusion models (Sec. 4.4). Experiments report improved online trajectory metrics (DTW) over SDT, strong performance on the synthetic paired dataset, improved FID/BFID/KID when the renderer is attached to diffusion baselines on IAM and CVL, and a qualitative robot-writing demonstration (Sec. 5).

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful contribution: a differentiable, low-dimensional brush model that connects trajectory generation to image synthesis, enabling synthetic paired-data construction, zero-shot guidance of diffusion models, and direct robot execution. The renderer equations are fully specified and the real-data improvements of One-DM+Ours over One-DM (e.g., FID 25.89 vs 29.00 on IAM, 14.45 vs 19.45 on CVL) are concrete and reproducible in principle. The framework is modular and the robot demonstration, though qualitative, illustrates a plausible application. However, the evidence for a genuine physical bridge to real handwriting is currently incomplete: the synthetic paired evaluation is circular, the pressure proxy is uncalibrated, and the real-data gains rely on test-set-tuned hyperparameters. These are fixable with additional experiments and analysis, but they are load-bearing for the paper's main claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Table 3] The evaluation of the brush parameter observer and the overall framework on the synthetic paired dataset is circular. D_syn is constructed by rendering online trajectories with randomly sampled θ using R, and the same R is used to generate both training and test pairs. The near-perfect LPIPS (0.001) and very low FID (11.81) for 'Our Renderer' are expected because the test images lie exactly on the renderer's image manifold. This does not validate that O recovers meaningful brush parameters for real handwriting images or that G generalizes beyond the synthetic domain. Please add an evaluation that breaks this loop, e.g., train on D_syn but evaluate on real trajectory–image pairs (even partially), or test generalisation to a different renderer with different composition rules or held-out physical parameters.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3)] The pressure proxy is a kinematic heuristic that is not calibrated to any physical measurement. Because v_t is normalized stroke-wise in Eq. (3), absolute writing speed is discarded: a uniformly slow, heavy stroke and a uniformly fast, light stroke produce identical p_proxy sequences. The inverse speed–pressure assumption is plausible but unvalidated. The robot demonstration (Sec. 5.2) does not measure whether the predicted θ or pressure proxy maps to physical stroke width or contact force. Please provide a calibration experiment, e.g., compare predicted p_proxy against measured pen pressure from a sensor-equipped device or against stroke widths produced by a robot under controlled Z-axis displacement. This is essential to support the paper's claim of a 'physical bridge' between kinematics and appearance.
  3. [Sec. 5.1, Table 4 and Sec. 5.1 text] The noise-injection start step t0 for the diffusion enhancer is tuned per dataset ('50 for DiffPen+Ours on both IAM and CVL, 900 for One-DM+Ours on IAM, and 200 for One-DM+Ours on CVL') and reported on the same test sets used for the final metrics. No validation split, selection procedure, or error bars are given. Since FID is sensitive to t0, the reported improvements of One-DM+Ours over One-DM may reflect test-set tuning rather than a robust benefit. Please report results for a range of t0 values, or fix t0 on a validation set and report test-set results with confidence intervals. Without this, the central quantitative evidence for the real-image contribution is not conclusive.
  4. [Sec. 5.2, Appendix D] The robotic writing demonstration is qualitative and does not quantify the mapping from predicted brush parameters to physical outcomes. The text states that a writing tool is selected based on θ and that pressure proxy is mapped to Z-axis displacement, but no measurement is reported of whether the rendered stroke width, ink density, or edge sharpness matches the robot's actual writing. Given the paper's emphasis on physical executability and the acknowledged 'surrogate parameters' limitation, this missing calibration leaves the physical-bridge claim unsupported. Please add quantitative measurements, e.g., stroke width or ink coverage of the robot output compared with R(S, θ), or at least controlled ablations of the Z-axis mapping.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (7)] The kernel exponent γ is defined as γ_min + λ(1 − σ_sharp), but the ranges of γ_min, λ, and σ_sharp are not given until Appendix C.2. Please state the ranges in the main text for clarity.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (loss)] The loss notation L_params and L_render uses MSE on raw parameters and images; consider normalizing the parameter MSE since θ components have different scales and units.
  3. [Sec. 5.1, Table 2] The DTW comparison with SDT is not apples-to-apples because SDT is a single-character model and words are formed by concatenation. This is noted in the text, but the table would benefit from a column clarifying the concatenation setting.
  4. [Appendix B, 'Brush Parameter ObserverO'] The observer is trained with four reference images but at inference two are sampled from fifteen style references. The discrepancy is mentioned only implicitly; please state whether this mismatch affects performance and whether the number of references is a hyperparameter.
  5. [Sec. 5.1, Table 4] CER for One-DM+Ours on CVL (0.6285) is much worse than One-DM (0.2877); the text mentions 'backbone- and dataset-dependent trade-offs' but does not explain this large degradation. A brief explanation would be useful.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Renderer's synthetic loop makes online-offline 'bridge' evaluation self-referential; real-image diffusion gains are independent but do not validate physical calibration.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 4.3 (loss), Sec. 5.1 Table 3, Sec. 3.3]
    "The loss functions Lparams = MSE(ˆθ, θgt) and Lrender = MSE( ˆIrend, Igt_rend) ensure direct alignment and accurate reconstruction of the final visual appearance. Here, ˆIrend = R(S, ˆθ) and Igt_rend = R(S, θgt)."

    The brush parameter observer's visual target and its prediction are both produced by the same differentiable renderer R. Table 3 then reports 'Our Renderer' with FID 11.81 and LPIPS 0.001 against images in the same synthetic test set generated by R. Since I_gt_rend is defined as R(S, θ_gt) and I_hat_rend is defined as R(S, θ_hat), near-perfect reconstruction is a self-consistency check by construction. It is not evidence that the six parameters correspond to real brush physics or that the bridge transfers to real handwriting; the evaluation is closed inside R's own image manifold.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.3, Sec. 5.1 Table 2]
    "For evaluation, we utilize a test set comprising IAM-OnDB [29] and CASIA [27], along with their rendered images."

    The test images are rendered from ground-truth online trajectories by the same differentiable renderer used to construct the training set. The stroke generator is trained on D_syn = {(T, S, Isyn, θ)} and then 'predicts' S from images of the form R(S, θ). The DTW scores in Table 2 therefore measure how well G inverts the known generative process R on R-generated images, not how well the online-offline bridge works on real offline handwriting images. This is a prediction on the renderer's own outputs: the fitted input (rendered image) is used to recall the trajectory that created it.

full rationale

The paper's differentiable renderer is a genuine construction, and the real-image offline experiments in Table 4 are independent benchmarks against strong diffusion baselines, so the framework is not wholly circular. However, the central 'bridge' claim is validated predominantly in a closed loop: R generates the synthetic paired dataset (Sec. 3.3), G and O are trained on it, and their evaluation (Tables 2 and 3, including the 'Our Renderer' row) uses the same R to create test images and the same R to define the rendering loss. The near-perfect LPIPS in Table 3 follows from comparing R(S, θ_hat) with R(S, θ_gt), and the DTW results follow from inverting R on R-generated images. These evaluations reduce by construction to the renderer itself. The Limitations section explicitly concedes that the parameters are 'renderer-level surrogate parameters rather than quantities directly calibrated to real-world physical units,' confirming that the physical interpretation is not independently validated. Score 6 because the central online-offline bridge is partially circular, while Table 4 provides independent non-circular evidence for the practical value of the rendering prior. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger captures the unverified modeling choices and hand-set constants that the framework leans on. The six brush parameters are sampled for data construction and learned by the observer, so they are not fitted to external data; the genuinely free hyperparameters are the hand-set renderer constants and the tuned diffusion start step. The domain assumptions are the physical simplifications (speed-pressure proxy, linear width, exponential opacity, max composition) that make the renderer differentiable. The ad hoc assumptions are the surrogate fidelity of the synthetic dataset and the diffusion latent initialization.

free parameters (6)
  • gamma_min = 2.0
    Chosen decay exponent floor in Eq. 7 (Appendix C.2 states gamma_min = 2.0).
  • lambda_sharp = 8.0
    Controls mapping from sigma_sharp to decay exponent gamma in Eq. 7 (Appendix C.2 states lambda = 8.0).
  • beta_smoothing = unspecified in (0,1)
    Exponential smoothing strength for pressure proxy in Eq. 4; the paper does not give the value used.
  • alpha_bg_range = U(0.35, 0.4)
    Background blending strength range in Eq. 19 (Appendix C.2).
  • t0_noise_step = 50/900/200 per setting
    Diffusion noise-injection start step in Eq. 17; tuned separately for each baseline and dataset (Sec 5.1).
  • lambda_base, lambda_dyn = unspecified
    Scaling factors in robot depth control mapping, Appendix D.2; values not reported.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Inverse relationship between writing speed and applied pressure (Eq. 3)
    The renderer's pressure proxy assumes faster writing means less pressure; this is stated in Sec 3.1 and Fig. I(a). It is not validated against measured pressure data.
  • domain assumption Effective stroke width scales linearly with pressure (Eq. 5)
    Borrowed from Hairy Brushes [42]; assumed valid for the surrogate renderer.
  • domain assumption Ink opacity follows O_t = 1 - exp(-rho_ink * p_t) (Eq. 8)
    Exponential ink transfer model is a design choice, not derived from physics.
  • domain assumption Maximum composition of overlapping stroke segments (Eq. 9)
    Assumes darkness at intersections is the darkest stroke; based on Hairy Brushes principle. Chosen for differentiability.
  • ad hoc to paper The synthetic renderer is a sufficient surrogate for real handwriting appearance in the paired dataset (Sec 3.3)
    The entire training pipeline depends on the unverified assumption that rendering online trajectories with the six-parameter model yields realistic enough images for models to transfer to real data.
  • ad hoc to paper Diffusion VAE latent can be initialized from rendered image at step t0 (Eq. 17)
    The zero-shot enhancer assumes the latent encoding of the rendered image is a valid structural prior; the choice of t0 is tuned.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridging Online and Offline Handwriting via Differentiable Physical Rendering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LQWXT2SL

@misc{pith2026260803198,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridging Online and Offline Handwriting via Differentiable Physical Rendering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LQWXT2SL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03198}
}
read the original abstract

Realistic handwritten text generation plays an important role in numerous applications, such as font design, biometric authentication, and robotic calligraphy. Existing methods are typically divided into two independent paradigms: online approaches that estimate handwriting trajectories and offline approaches that synthesize realistic handwriting images. While online models capture structural and temporal dynamics, they often lack fine-grained textures, whereas offline models reproduce realistic appearance but discard stroke order. However, unifying online and offline models remains challenging due to (1) the lack of an explicit physical model linking stroke kinematics to pixel-level appearance and (2) the absence of paired trajectory-image datasets. Moreover, enabling end-to-end learning requires a differentiable rendering process across motion and appearance domains. To address these challenges, we propose a compact physical brush model that bridges stroke dynamics and visual appearance, together with a differentiable rendering module that converts stroke trajectories into stylized images. By integrating these components, we propose a unified online-offline handwriting generation framework via differentiable brush rendering. The proposed framework consists of four core modules: 1) a text-to-stroke generator that predicts the target stroke conditioned on the given text and style image, 2) a brush parameter observer that extracts brush model parameters from style references, 3) a differentiable brush renderer that maps a stroke sequence and physical brush parameters into a handwritten image, and 4) a zero-shot image refiner that refines rendered images via diffusion models. Extensive experiments and real-world robotic calligraphy demonstrations validate our approach, achieving both structural and visual fidelity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03198 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A unified framework for online and offline handwriting generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of online and offline handwriting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Conceptual overview of the proposed brush model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Online-Offline paired dataset generated by our differentiable renderer. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of the proposed joint online–offline handwriting framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison of offline handwriting generation results. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative results of our framework executed by a real robotic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) 33, 10041–10052 (2020)

    Aksan, E., Deselaers, T., Tagliasacchi, A., Hilliges, O.: Cose: Compositional stroke embeddings. Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) 33, 10041–10052 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (2018)

    Aksan, E., Pece, F., Hilliges, O.: Deepwriting: Making digital ink editable via deep generative modeling. In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2024)

    Bandyopadhyay, H., Bhunia, A.K., Chowdhury, P.N., Sain, A., Xiang, T., Hospedales, T., Song, Y.Z.: Sketchinr: A first look into sketches as implicit neural representations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH (2001)

    Baxter, B., Scheib, V., Lin, M.C., Manocha, D.: Dab: Interactive haptic painting with 3d virtual brushes. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) (2022)

    Berio, D., Leymarie, F.F., Asente, P., Echevarria, J.: Strokestyles: Stroke-based segmentation and stylization of fonts. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (1994)

    Berndt, D.J., Clifford, J.: Using dynamic time warping to find patterns in time series. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (1994)

    work page 1994

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2021)

    Bhunia, A.K., Khan, S., Cholakkal, H., Anwer, R.M., Khan, F.S., Shah, M.: Hand- writing transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01401 (2018)

    Bińkowski, M., Sutherland, D.J., Arbel, M., Gretton, A.: Demystifying mmd gans. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01401 (2018)

    arXiv 2018

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L) (2025)

    Chen, L., Schaldenbrand, P., Shankar, T., Coleman, L., Oh, J.: Spline-frida: Towards diverse, humanlike robot painting styles with a sample-efficient, differentiable brush stroke model. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L) (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) (2015)

    Chen, Z., Kim, B., Ito, D., Wang, H.: Wetbrush: Gpu-based 3d painting simulation at the bristle level. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    In: 10th Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications, 2002

    Chu, N.H., Tai, C.L.: An efficient brush model for physically-based 3d painting. In: 10th Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications, 2002. Proceedings. (2002)

    2002

  4. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2024)

    Dai,G.,Zhang,Y.,Ke,Q.,Guo,Q.,Huang,S.:One-dm:One-shotdiffusionmimicker for handwritten text generation. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2023)

    Dai, G., Zhang, Y., Wang, Q., Du, Q., Yu, Z., Liu, Z., Huang, S.: Disentangling writer and character styles for handwriting generation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) (2022)

    Gan, J., Wang, W., Leng, J., Gao, X.: Higan+: handwriting imitation gan with disentangled representations. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.0850 (2013)

    Graves, A.: Generating sequences with recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.0850 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2016)

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Advances in neural information processing systems (2017) 26

    Heusel, M., Ramsauer, H., Unterthiner, T., Nessler, B., Hochreiter, S.: Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. Advances in neural information processing systems (2017) 26

    2017

  10. [18]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L) (2026)

    Hou, Z., Yu, C., Hsu, D., Yu, H.: Teachingbot: Robot teacher for human handwriting. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L) (2026)

    2026

  11. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.19398 (2026)

    Jeon, W., Park, S., Shin, S., Lee, S., Jeong, H., Jeon, H.G.: Rebalancing reference frame dominance to improve motion in image-to-video models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.19398 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    In: The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (2026)

    Jeon, W., Shin, S., Shin, D., Jeon, H.G.: Motion prior distillation in time reversal sampling for generative inbetweening. In: The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (2026)

    2026

  13. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2020)

    Kang, L., Riba, P., Wang, Y., Rusinol, M., Fornés, A., Villegas, M.: Ganwriting: content-conditioned generation of styled handwritten word images. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (2018)

    Khrulkov, V., Oseledets, I.: Geometry score: A method for comparing generative adversarial networks. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    In: International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR) (2013)

    Kleber, F., Fiel, S., Diem, M., Sablatnig, R.: Cvl-database: An off-line database for writer retrieval, writer identification and word spotting. In: International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR) (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.14679 (2026)

    Lee, C., Shin, S., Choi, D., Jeon, H.g., Son, J.: Universal image immuniza- tion against diffusion-based image editing via semantic injection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.14679 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  17. [25]

    IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (1999)

    Lee, J.: Simulating oriental black-ink painting. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) (2023)

    Li, M., Lv, T., Chen, J., Cui, L., Lu, Y., Florencio, D., Zhang, C., Li, Z., Wei, F.: Trocr: Transformer-based optical character recognition with pre-trained models. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    In: International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR)

    Liu, C.L., Yin, F., Wang, D.H., Wang, Q.F.: Casia online and offline chinese handwriting databases. In: International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR). pp. 37–41. IEEE (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2024)

    Liu, Y., Khalid, F.B., Wang, L., Zhang, Y., Wang, C.: Elegantly written: Disen- tangling writer and character styles for enhancing online chinese handwriting. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    In: International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR) (2005)

    Liwicki, M., Bunke, H.: Iam-ondb-an on-line english sentence database acquired from handwritten text on a whiteboard. In: International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR) (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2024)

    Luo, Y., Wu, Z., Lian, Z.: Callirewrite: Recovering handwriting behaviors from calligraphy images without supervision. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    International journal on document analysis and recognition (2002)

    Marti, U.V., Bunke, H.: The iam-database: an english sentence database for offline handwriting recognition. International journal on document analysis and recognition (2002)

    2002

  24. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2024)

    Nikolaidou, K., Retsinas, G., Sfikas, G., Liwicki, M.: Diffusionpen: towards con- trolling the style of handwritten text generation. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Park, S., Bae, I., Shin, S., Jeon, H.G.: Kinetic typography diffusion model. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 166–185. Springer (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2023)

    Pippi, V., Cascianelli, S., Cucchiara, R.: Handwritten text generation from visual archetypes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20316 (2023) Appendix 27

    Pippi, V., Quattrini, F., Cascianelli, S., Cucchiara, R.: Hwd: A novel evaluation score for styled handwritten text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20316 (2023) Appendix 27

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2025)

    Pippi, V., Quattrini, F., Cascianelli, S., Tonioni, A., Cucchiara, R.: Zero-shot styled text image generation, but make it autoregressive. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2025)

    Ren, M.S., Zhang, Y.M., Chen, Y.: Decoupling layout from glyph in online chinese handwriting generation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2022)

    Schaldenbrand, P., McCann, J., Oh, J.: Frida: A collaborative robot painter with a differentiable, real2sim2real planning environment. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Shin, S., Shin, D., Shin, J., Jeon, H.G., Lee, J.Y.: Video color grading via look-up table generation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 19141–19152 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Shin, S., Shin, J., Bae, J., Shim, I., Jeon, H.G.: Close imitation of expert retouching for black-and-white photography. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 25037–25046 (June 2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Siméoni, O., Vo, H.V., Seitzer, M., Baldassarre, F., Oquab, M., Jose, C., Khalidov, V., Szafraniec, M., Yi, S., Ramamonjisoa, M., Massa, F., Haziza, D., Wehrstedt, L., Wang, J., Darcet, T., Moutakanni, T., Sentana, L., Roberts, C., Vedaldi, A., Tolan, J., Brandt, J., Couprie, ...

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    ACM Siggraph Computer Graphics (1986)

    Strassmann, S.: Hairy brushes. ACM Siggraph Computer Graphics (1986)

    1986

  35. [43]

    In: Computer Graphics Forum (CGF) (2021)

    Tang, S., Lian, Z.: Write like you: Synthesizing your cursive online chinese hand- writing via metric-based meta learning. In: Computer Graphics Forum (CGF) (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI) (2024)

    Vanherle, B., Pippi, V., Cascianelli, S., Michiels, N., Van Reeth, F., Cucchiara, R.: Vatr++: Choose your words wisely for handwritten text generation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI) (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2025)

    Wang, J., Chen, M., Karaev, N., Vedaldi, A., Rupprecht, C., Novotny, D.: Vggt: Vi- sual geometry grounded transformer. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) (2024)

    Xu, Z., Cai, S., Varma T, M., Venugopalan, S., Zhai, S.: Skipwriter: Llm-powered abbreviated writing on tablets. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (2024)

    Yao, Z., Sun, Q., Liu, B., Lu, Y., Liu, G., Yang, X.D., Mi, H.: Inkbrush: A sketching tool for 3d ink painting. In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2018)

    Zhang, R., Isola, P., Efros, A.A., Shechtman, E., Wang, O.: The unreasonable effec- tiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2023)

    Zhu, Y., Li, Z., Wang, T., He, M., Yao, C.: Conditional text image generation with diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.