Can OCR-VLMs Read Devanagari? A Stress-Test Benchmark and Post-Correction Study
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
Title:Can OCR-VLMs Read Devanagari? A Stress-Test Benchmark and Post-Correction Study
Abstract:OCR systems, ranging from classical engines to specialised OCR vision-language models (OCR-VLMs) and frontier multimodal LLMs, report strong results on English and Chinese document benchmarks, yet their behaviour on Indic scripts is largely uncharacterised. We benchmark ten systems on Devanagari (Hindi): classical EasyOCR; open VLMs (Qwen2.5-VL-3B, Qwen3-VL-8B, olmOCR-7B); specialised OCR-VLMs (DeepSeek-OCR, Unlimited-OCR); and frontier closed models (Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, Mistral OCR), across four synthetic degradation conditions and 300 real printed scans. We report four findings. First, on clean rendered text all ten cluster within chrF++ 91 to 98, so synthetic text does not separate them. Second, under degradation the specialised OCR-VLMs are the most fragile: DeepSeek-OCR suffers rare but catastrophic repetition failures (outputs up to 71 the reference length) that wreck its corpus mean even though its median is the best of any system, which is why we report median and catastrophic-rate instead of the mean. Third, on real scans nine of the ten systems collapse (EasyOCR falls from chrF++ 93.6 to 58.3) and the field spreads across a 76-point range, so synthetic renders badly overstate Devanagari quality. Fourth, strong English OCR does not predict Indic OCR: GPT-5.5 drops to chrF++ 58.5 (tying classical EasyOCR) and olmOCR-7B, the model behind olmOCR-Bench, falls to 40.5, while the open Qwen3-VL-8B (75.2, runnable on a single 24 GB GPU) beats GPT-5.5 and approaches Mistral; Gemini and Claude lead at 86.3 and 82.2. An error taxonomy separates surface errors (numerals, punctuation) from structural ones (conjuncts, matras, nukta), and a byte-level (ByT5) post-corrector improves a cheap engine on its own error distribution (chrF++ +1.2 to +1.5) but does not transfer across engines. We release the benchmark, code, and models.
| Comments: | 9 pages, 5 figures. Benchmark and code released |
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2606.29213 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2606.29213v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.29213
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Submission history
From: Aditya Pratap Singh Mr. [view email][v1] Sun, 28 Jun 2026 05:46:05 UTC (208 KB)
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
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.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
Generating in the Limit with Infinitely Many Hallucinations
Jun 30
-
Extracting Knowledge from an Arabic-English Machine-Readable Dictionary Using Information Extraction
Jun 30
-
Developmental Trajectories of Situation Modeling and Mentalizing in Transformer Language Models
Jun 30
-
A French OSCE Dialogue Dataset and Controllable Virtual Patient System for Clinical Training
Jun 30
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.