The Devil is in the Details -- From OCR for Old Church Slavonic to Purely Visual Stemma Reconstruction

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.

Despite remarkable progress in machine translation, Vision Language Models (VLMs) struggle on historical manuscripts, a domain that stresses core Natural Language Processing (NLP) capabilities: low-resource transliteration, archaic vocabulary, and noisy input signals. We present a systematic framework for evaluating the full image-to-translation pipeline on medieval Latin manuscripts, a setting in which scribal shorthand, ligatures, and parchment degradation expose failure modes that are invisible in clean-text benchmarks. Benchmarking on the CATMuS Latin dataset reveals a specialization gap: domain-specific Optical Character Recognition (OCR) models reduce character error rate by up to 4.3$\times$ compared to general-purpose VLMs, despite operating at orders of magnitude fewer parameters. We introduce the Interpres-Parallel-Corpus (IPC), a novel dataset comprising 1,383 aligned manuscript image lines, transcriptions, and expert translations, the first of its kind for medieval Latin. Our experiments uncover a complexity paradox: the simplest pipeline, a specialized OCR model feeding directly into a VLM, outperforms all multi-component variants. Adding retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) or post-OCR correction introduces prompt saturation and error propagation that degrade aggregate translation quality. These findings offer both a new benchmark and practical guidance for deploying translation systems in low-resource historical settings.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly being used for document understanding, yet their role in Arabic and Islamic manuscript recognition remains underexplored. To address such a gap in this paper, we evaluate traditional OCR, general-purpose VLMs, Arabic-specialized VLMs, and OCR-conditioned VLM correction across eight Arabic text datasets spanning historical manuscripts, aged printed books, clean print, multi-domain documents, and handwriting. The results show that no single approach dominates across setups. On line-level historical manuscripts, VLMs are close to Tesseract; on page-level manuscript images, they perform better; and in several settings, an OCR-conditioned corrector improves over both standalone OCR and standalone VLMs. The central finding is an OCR-prior recoverability principle: OCR conditioning helps when the OCR output remains visually and textually recoverable, providing anchors that the VLM can refine against the image. It improves recognition on aged print, clean print, mixed-domain Arabic, and some Naskh manuscripts, but degrades performance when the prior is script-mismatched or systematically misleading, as in Maghribi manuscripts and realistic student handwriting. Additional diagnostics show that Arabic VLM-OCR is sensitive to diacritics, preprocessing, generation budget, and repetition loops. These findings support an adaptive OCR-VLM workflow that routes pages according to script, OCR-prior recoverability, length diagnostics, and failure-mode indicators.