aiqbench analysis
This study quantifies the annotation efficiency gains of synthetic pretraining for handwritten Devanagari recognition, demonstrating that supervised methods can reduce required real transcriptions by over 75% compared to random initialization. However, the benefits diminish as target accuracy increases, and masked image modeling was observed to transfer negatively within specific budget ranges. The research provides critical sample-complexity curves for low-resource script recognition, offering practical guidance on data budgets for fine-tuning specialized models.
Measuring Annotation Efficiency for Handwritten Devanagari Recognition: Sample-Complexity Curves for Four Pretraining Regimes
arXiv:2609.16859v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: To train handwritten text recognition systems we need word images and their corresponding transcriptions, and these transcriptions are produced manually. For a script that can be read by only a small number of specialists, this manual transcription is a limitation, because the trained models are supposed to save the time of those same specialists. A relevant question therefore arises: how many transcriptions are needed before a recogniser becomes useful, and how much of that cost can pretraining remove? In this study the answer is measured directly for handwritten Devanagari. We keep the recogniser, optimiser and evaluation protocol the same and change only the number of real transcribed words used for fine-tuning across nine budgets from 10 to 4,000 and four initialisation regimes, with six seeds at every point. The resulting curves are then converted into annotation-equivalent terms. A CER of 0.50 is reached by supervised synthetic pretraining using only 81 transcribed words, whereas random initialisation requires 355, which gives a label multiplier of 4.40 [3.56, 4.99]. There is a zero-shot reference point as well: with no real transcribed words at all, this pretraining is worth about 136 of them. This advantage gets smaller as the target accuracy improves, and at the most demanding target we measure, it cannot be distinguished from no saving at all. A fourth arm in which only the encoder is transferred separates the effect of the pretraining method from that of transfer scope, and masked image modelling is observed to transfer negatively over a bounded range of budgets. We emphasise that the scarcity in this study is constructed by subsampling a large corpus.
Abstract:To train handwritten text recognition systems we need word images and their corresponding transcriptions, and these transcriptions are produced manually. For a script that can be read by only a small number of specialists, this manual transcription is a limitation, because the trained models are supposed to save the time of those same specialists. A relevant question therefore arises: how many transcriptions are needed before a recogniser becomes useful, and how much of that cost can pretraining remove? In this study the answer is measured directly for handwritten Devanagari. We keep the recogniser, optimiser and evaluation protocol the same and change only the number of real transcribed words used for fine-tuning across nine budgets from 10 to 4,000 and four initialisation regimes, with six seeds at every point. The resulting curves are then converted into annotation-equivalent terms. A CER of 0.50 is reached by supervised synthetic pretraining using only 81 transcribed words, whereas random initialisation requires 355, which gives a label multiplier of 4.40 [3.56, 4.99]. There is a zero-shot reference point as well: with no real transcribed words at all, this pretraining is worth about 136 of them. This advantage gets smaller as the target accuracy improves, and at the most demanding target we measure, it cannot be distinguished from no saving at all. A fourth arm in which only the encoder is transferred separates the effect of the pretraining method from that of transfer scope, and masked image modelling is observed to transfer negatively over a bounded range of budgets. We emphasise that the scarcity in this study is constructed by subsampling a large corpus.
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.16859 [cs.CV]
(or arXiv:2609.16859v1 [cs.CV] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.16859 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 367 words
Related coverage

Reducing medical claims review time with AI on AWS: The EXL Medical IDP solution
AWS · Sep 21, 2026

Built Technologies builds an AI-powered document intelligence solution on AWS to power agents across real estate finance
AWS · Jul 15, 2026

How Guardoc transforms medical document processing with Amazon Nova models
AWS · Jul 27, 2026

Researchers Evaluate Quantum and Classical Models Achieving 90 Per Cent Digit Recognition Accuracy
Quantum Zeitgeist · May 30, 2026