Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 19 references

Top-view video can detect pen-up states during handwriting with an F2 score up to 0.805.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-28 15:06 UTC pith:4IA3P6FH

load-bearing objection A modest pilot shows video can detect pen-ups beyond tablet range with F2=0.805 under LOVO, but the result rests on unspecified manual annotations with no agreement checks. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.02342 v1 pith:4IA3P6FH submitted 2026-06-01 cs.CV

Detecting Pen-In-Air States from Video: A Proof-of-Concept Toward Complementary Handwriting Analysis

Lauren Sismeiro , Remy Plastre , Binbin Xu , Frederic Puyjarinet , Gerard Dray This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords pen-up detectionhandwriting analysisvideo-based trackingYOLO detectordysgraphiapen-in-air stateskinematic features
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tests whether ordinary top-view video can identify when a pen lifts off the page, called Pen-Up states, as a way to expand what digitizing tablets can measure. Tablets sense only short distances above the surface and miss higher lifts. The authors build a pipeline that tracks the pen tip, pulls out movement features, and classifies contact states with machine learning. On a small set of pilot videos they reach an F2 score of 0.805 for Pen-Up segments using leave-one-video-out testing. This result is framed as evidence that video offers a low-cost complement for studying handwriting dynamics in conditions such as dysgraphia.

Core claim

A hybrid pipeline that first locates the pen tip with a YOLO detector, then extracts kinematic features from the tracked trajectory, and finally applies machine learning classification can produce reliable event-level detection of Pen-Up segments from top-view video, reaching an F2 score of 0.805 under leave-one-video-out evaluation on a pilot dataset of diverse handwriting videos.

What carries the argument

Hybrid pipeline of YOLO-based pen-tip tracking, kinematic feature extraction, and machine learning classification for inferring pen-contact states from video.

Load-bearing premise

Manual frame-level annotations of the pilot videos are accurate and the small dataset plus leave-one-video-out protocol is sufficient to support claims of feasibility.

What would settle it

A direct side-by-side comparison of video detections against simultaneous tablet or motion-capture ground truth on a larger set of writers would confirm or refute the reported detection performance.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Video can capture high-lift pen movements that exceed the proximity range of tablet sensors.
  • The approach supplies a low-cost, non-intrusive source of pen-contact information for handwriting analysis.
  • Results support extending the method to larger studies of developmental disorders such as dysgraphia.
  • The F2 emphasis on recall aligns with screening applications where missing Pen-Up events is costly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Pairing video detections with tablet data could produce a more complete record of pen trajectories.
  • Ordinary cameras in classrooms or clinics could enable wider collection of dynamic handwriting measures.
  • Real-time versions of the pipeline might support immediate corrective feedback during writing practice.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a proof-of-concept for detecting Pen-Up (pen-in-air) states from top-view handwriting video via a hybrid pipeline of YOLO-based pen-tip tracking, kinematic feature extraction, and machine learning classification. Using manual frame-level annotations on a pilot dataset and Leave-One-Video-Out (LOVO) evaluation, it reports event-level detection performance with an F2 score up to 0.805, positioned as a low-cost complement to digitizing tablets for analyzing dynamic handwriting aspects in developmental disorders such as dysgraphia.

Significance. If the core result holds, the work establishes initial feasibility for video-based capture of high-lift pen movements beyond tablet proximity limits, enabling non-intrusive data collection for larger studies on handwriting disorders. The interpretable pipeline, recall-oriented F2 metric, and LOVO protocol are appropriate strengths for a pilot study in applied computer vision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Evaluation] Abstract and Evaluation paragraph: The pilot dataset size (number of videos, participants, or frames), inter-annotator agreement, and annotation protocol (including boundary rules for ambiguous pen-surface transitions) are not reported. Because the headline F2=0.805 is computed from these manual labels and pen-in-air states are visually ambiguous in top-view video, this omission directly affects whether the performance reflects method quality or label noise.
  2. [Results] Results section: No baseline comparisons (e.g., velocity-threshold heuristics on tracked pen-tip position) or error analysis (per-video breakdowns, boundary error cases, or confusion at contact transitions) are provided. Without these, it is impossible to determine the incremental value of the kinematic features and classifier over simpler approaches for the reported event-level metric.
  3. [Methods] Methods section: The conversion from frame-level classifications to event-level Pen-Up segments (e.g., merging rules, minimum duration, or hysteresis thresholds) is not described in sufficient detail. This step is load-bearing for the F2 score and must be specified to allow reproduction and assessment of the event-level claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Expand 'LOVO' on first use and ensure consistent terminology between abstract and body.
  2. [Dataset description] Add dataset statistics table (videos, duration, writer demographics) to support the 'diverse' claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We agree that additional details are needed to strengthen the pilot study and will revise the manuscript to address the points raised. Our responses to each major comment follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Evaluation] Abstract and Evaluation paragraph: The pilot dataset size (number of videos, participants, or frames), inter-annotator agreement, and annotation protocol (including boundary rules for ambiguous pen-surface transitions) are not reported. Because the headline F2=0.805 is computed from these manual labels and pen-in-air states are visually ambiguous in top-view video, this omission directly affects whether the performance reflects method quality or label noise.

    Authors: We will expand both the abstract and evaluation section to report the exact pilot dataset statistics (number of videos, participants, and total frames). The annotation protocol, including explicit rules for handling ambiguous pen-surface transitions, will be described in full. As this was a single-annotator pilot study, inter-annotator agreement was not computed; we will state this limitation explicitly rather than report a non-existent metric. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section: No baseline comparisons (e.g., velocity-threshold heuristics on tracked pen-tip position) or error analysis (per-video breakdowns, boundary error cases, or confusion at contact transitions) are provided. Without these, it is impossible to determine the incremental value of the kinematic features and classifier over simpler approaches for the reported event-level metric.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of baselines and error analysis limits interpretability. In the revised results section we will add a velocity-threshold baseline applied directly to the YOLO-tracked pen-tip trajectories and include per-video F2 breakdowns together with qualitative discussion of boundary and transition errors. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The conversion from frame-level classifications to event-level Pen-Up segments (e.g., merging rules, minimum duration, or hysteresis thresholds) is not described in sufficient detail. This step is load-bearing for the F2 score and must be specified to allow reproduction and assessment of the event-level claim.

    Authors: We will add a dedicated subsection in Methods that fully specifies the post-processing pipeline, including the exact merging rules, minimum segment duration, and any hysteresis thresholds applied when converting frame-level predictions to event-level Pen-Up segments. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical ML pipeline on held-out videos

full rationale

The paper describes a hybrid detection pipeline (YOLO pen-tip tracking + kinematic features + ML classifier) whose output is an empirical F2 performance number under LOVO cross-validation on manually annotated pilot videos. No equations, fitted parameters, or first-principles claims are presented as predictions; the reported metric is a direct evaluation result on held-out data rather than a quantity forced by construction from the inputs. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes appear in the provided text. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as standard supervised learning evaluation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the reliability of manual frame-level labels and the representativeness of the pilot videos; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced beyond standard ML training.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5731 in / 1200 out tokens · 21660 ms · 2026-06-28T15:06:40.916375+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detecting Pen-In-Air States from Video: A Proof-of-Concept Toward Complementary Handwriting Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4IA3P6FH

@misc{pith2026260602342,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detecting Pen-In-Air States from Video: A Proof-of-Concept Toward Complementary Handwriting Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4IA3P6FH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.02342}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Dynamic aspects of handwriting are critical for assessing developmental disorders such as dysgraphia and are typically captured using digitizing tablets. However, tablet-based sensing restricts analysis of Pen-Up behavior to a short proximity range above the writing surface, potentially missing high-lift in-air movements. As a proof of concept, we investigate whether top-view video can provide a complementary source of information for inferring pen-contact states without relying on tablet proximity sensing. We propose an interpretable hybrid pipeline combining pen-tip tracking using a YOLO-based detector with kinematic feature extraction and machine learning classification. A pilot dataset of diverse handwriting videos was manually annotated at the frame level and evaluation used a Leave-One-Video-Out (LOVO) protocol. The method achieved reliable event-level detection of Pen-Up segments, with an F_2 score up to 0.805, consistent with the emphasis on recall in a screening-oriented setting. These results support the feasibility of video-based Pen-Up detection as a low-cost and non-intrusive complement to digitizing tablets, and provide a foundation for future large-scale studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02342 by Binbin Xu, Frederic Puyjarinet, Gerard Dray, Lauren Sismeiro, Remy Plastre.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the proposed hybrid pipeline for pen-contact state detection from top-view handwriting videos. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Trajectory of pen movement, with color intensity encoding instanta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Event-level Recall (left) and F2 score (right) as functions of temporal tolerance for the four evaluated models. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Feature importance analysis for the LightGBM model based on mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Charles, R

    M. Charles, R. Soppelsa, and J.-M. Albaret,BHK – ´Echelle d’´evaluation rapide de l’ ´ecriture chez l’enfant. ´Editions Centre de Psychologie Appliqu´ee, 2004

    2004

  2. [2]

    Handwriting Difficulties: A Review of Recent Advances in the Identification and Intervention,

    S. Murnani, K. Hashitsume, and T. Igasaki, “Handwriting Difficulties: A Review of Recent Advances in the Identification and Intervention,” IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 133397–133417, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Automated human-level diagnosis of dysgraphia using a consumer tablet,

    T. Asselborn, T. Gargot, Ł. Kidzi ´nski, W. Johal, D. Cohen, C. Jolly, and P. Dillenbourg, “Automated human-level diagnosis of dysgraphia using a consumer tablet,”npj Digital Medicine, vol. 1, p. 42, Aug. 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Dysgraphia detection through machine learn- ing,

    P. Drot ´ar and M. Dobe ˇs, “Dysgraphia detection through machine learn- ing,”Scientific Reports, vol. 10, p. 21541, Dec. 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Exploration and analysis of On-Surface and In-Air handwriting attributes to improve dysgraphia disorder diagnosis in children based on machine learning methods,

    J. Kunhoth, S. Al Maadeed, M. Saleh, and Y . Akbari, “Exploration and analysis of On-Surface and In-Air handwriting attributes to improve dysgraphia disorder diagnosis in children based on machine learning methods,”Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 83, p. 104715, May 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    The in Air Phenomenon: Temporal and Spatial Correlates of the Handwriting Process,

    S. Rosenblum, S. Parush, and P. L. Weiss, “The in Air Phenomenon: Temporal and Spatial Correlates of the Handwriting Process,”Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol. 96, pp. 933–954, June 2003

    2003

  7. [7]

    Chapitre 4. Traiter des donn´ees de langage ´ecrit recueillies avec tablette graphique,

    J.-C. Gilhodes, E. Fabiani, M. Longcamp, J.-L. Velay, and J. Danna, “Chapitre 4. Traiter des donn´ees de langage ´ecrit recueillies avec tablette graphique,” inIntroduction aux statistiques en sciences du langage, pp. 117–136, Dunod, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Video-based on-line handwrit- ing recognition,

    G. Fink, M. Wienecke, and G. Sagerer, “Video-based on-line handwrit- ing recognition,” inProceedings of Sixth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, pp. 226–230, Sept. 2001

    2001

  9. [9]

    Visual input for pen-based computers,

    M. Munich and P. Perona, “Visual input for pen-based computers,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 24, pp. 313–328, Mar. 2002

    2002

  10. [10]

    Dorufavsart

    DorufaVSArt, “Dorufavsart.” https://www.youtube.com/@DorufaVSArt, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Long-term Recurrent Convolutional Networks for Visual Recognition and Description

    J. Donahue, L. A. Hendricks, M. Rohrbach, S. Venugopalan, S. Guadar- rama, K. Saenko, and T. Darrell, “Long-term Recurrent Convolu- tional Networks for Visual Recognition and Description,” May 2016. arXiv:1411.4389 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    Comprehensive performance evaluation of yolov11, yolov10, yolov9, yolov8 and yolov5 on object detection of power equipment,

    Z. He, K. Wang, T. Fang, L. Su, R. Chen, and X. Fei, “Comprehensive performance evaluation of yolov11, yolov10, yolov9, yolov8 and yolov5 on object detection of power equipment,” in2025 37th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), pp. 1281–1286, IEEE, May 2025. Proceedings of the 37th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Optuna: A next- generation hyperparameter optimization framework,

    T. Akiba, S. Sano, T. Yanase, T. Ohta, and M. Koyama, “Optuna: A next- generation hyperparameter optimization framework,” inProceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Dis- covery & Data Mining, KDD ’19, (New York, NY , USA), p. 2623–2631, Association for Computing Machinery, 2019

    2019

  14. [14]

    In a split second: Handwriting pauses in typical and struggling writers,

    M. Pascual, O. Soler, and N. Salas, “In a split second: Handwriting pauses in typical and struggling writers,”Frontiers in Psychology, vol. V olume 13 - 2022, 2023

    2022

  15. [15]

    Weighted Intersection over Union (wIoU) for Evaluating Image Segmentation,

    Y .-J. Cho, “Weighted Intersection over Union (wIoU) for Evaluating Image Segmentation,”Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 185, pp. 101– 107, Sept. 2024. arXiv:2107.09858 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    From local explanations to global understanding with explainable ai for trees,

    S. M. Lundberg, G. Erion, H. Chen, A. DeGrave, J. M. Prutkin, B. Nair, others, and S.-I. Lee, “From local explanations to global understanding with explainable ai for trees,”Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 56–67, 2020

    2020

  17. [17]

    Event detection from time series data,

    V . Guralnik and J. Srivastava, “Event detection from time series data,” inProceedings of the fifth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, KDD ’99, (New York, NY , USA), pp. 33–42, Association for Computing Machinery, 1999

    1999

  18. [18]

    Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead,

    C. Rudin, “Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead,”Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 206–215, 2019

    2019

  19. [19]

    Green ai,

    R. Schwartz, J. Dodge, N. A. Smith, and O. Etzioni, “Green ai,” Commun. ACM, vol. 63, p. 54–63, Nov. 2020

    2020