In-air handwriting recognition based on radio frequency (RF) signals offers a promising solution for human-computer interaction, yet existing methods are often limited by predefined writing planes, constrained writing styles, and small recognition vocabularies. To address these limitations, we propose m^2VLMs, a modality mapping architecture that bridges millimeter-wave (mmWave) radar sensing and large vision-language models (VLMs), and develop mmPencil, a 3D in-air handwriting word recognition system. mmPencil reconstructs 3D handwriting trajectories from mmWave signals using a multi-stage spatial trajectory reconstruction algorithm and maps them into visual representations through a spatial-to-visual mapping algorithm, enabling VLMs to recognize handwriting while reducing sensitivity to writing styles and environmental factors. We collect and release a 3D mmWave handwriting dataset containing 7,664 samples of 200 words from 12 users across 22 writing scenarios. Extensive experiments demonstrate that mmPencil achieves robust word recognition under variations in writing position, range, angle, speed, size, direction, and user movement. It achieves 97.60% accuracy on 200 word classes for seen users and 92.50% zero-shot accuracy on 50 word classes for unseen users, outperforming state-of-the-art baselines.
Figures & tables
System
Radio
Recognition Scope
Writing-Position Independent
Writing-Direction Independent
Writing-Order Independent
RF-finger ( Wang et al., 2018 )
RFID
26 letters & 4 shapes
2D plane
✗
✗
Arsalan et al. ( Arsalan and Santra, 2019 )
mmWave
10 letters & 5 numbers
2D plane
✓
✓
FingerDraw ( Wu et al., 2020b )
Wi-Fi
26 letters & 10 numbers
2D plane
✗
✗
mmWrite ( Regani et al., 2021 )
mmWave
50 characters
2D plane
✗
✗
CentiTrack-3D ( Han et al., 2021 )
Wi-Fi
26 letters & 10 numbers
3D space
✗
✗
HandGest ( Zhang et al., 2022 )
Wi-Fi
12 letters & 10 numbers
2D plane
✗
✗
Table 1. Comparison with Existing RF-Based In-Air Writing Recognition Systems.
Figure 2
Figure 3. Overview of the m2VLMs architecture.
Figure 4. Illustration of data pre-processing results. (a) The noise elimination unit filters the interference of direct leakage and ambient noise. (b) The spectrum refinement unit improves the position estimation resolution.
Figure 5. Illustration of spectrum refinement results.
Figure 6. Handwriting trajectory points in polar coordinates and smoothed handwriting trajectories in 3D Cartesian coordinates (The color change represents the writing order).
Figure 7. Filtering effects with different transition covariance.
Figure 8. Writing trajectory images after direction-corrected PCA.
Figure 9. Data collection in home scenes.
about
action
again
all
almost
also
am
among
an
and
any
around
as
asked
at
away
back
be
because
become
been
before
being
believed
best
better
both
but
by
called
case
cent
change
come
could
course
day
did
do
does
down
early
end
enough
even
every
face
fact
few
film
find
first
for
found
four
from
full
get
give
given
go
god
going
good
great
had
half
hand
has
have
Table 2. 200 Categories of Words Contained in the mmPencil Dataset.
User Number
Age
Occupation
Data Scope
Total Data Volume
1
28
Ph.D. Student
200 words
2880
2
23
Engineering Intern
200 words
2000
3
24
Master’s Student
200 words
400
4
28
Assistant Engineer
200 words
400
5
24
Engineering Intern
50 words & 10 numbers & 2 symbols
248
6
24
Ph.D. Student
50 words & 10 numbers & 2 symbols
248
Table 3. Information of Participant Users and Collected Data.
Figure 10. In-air handwriting style of all users (case word "where").
Figure 11. Performance comparison with baselines ("+" represents the trained or fine-tuned model).
Figure 12. Mapped images of the word "today" for different users.
Figure 13. Recognition accuracy of unseen users.
Figure 16Figure 17Figure 18Figure 19Figure 20
Figure 26. Zero-shot recognition accuracy of unseen words.
Method
Parameters
Trajectory Reconstruction Time (ms per letter)
Inference Time (ms per sample)
Accuracy (%)
ResNet
45.5M
468.30
10.05
84.13
GOT
500M
468.30
697.69
92.50
GOT (moderate SR)
500M
155.65
696.73
90.17
Qwen2.5-VL
3B
468.30
33.18
83.67
Qwen2.5-VL (moderate SR)
3B
155.65
32.44
80.50
Qwen2-VL
7B
468.30
185.56
89.50
Table 4. Comparison of computational latency and recognition accuracy.