ATLAS: Article Tracking, Linking, and Analysis of Swedish Encyclopedias

The personal archive of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935) is held as fond 555 of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The archive scanned the fond and published the images, but with no queryable catalogue, no full-text search and no dataset: the holdings can only be browsed one page at a time. This paper describes a machine-readable catalogue of all 2,019 files and 51,008 scans, a dating for 1,969 files taken from the archive's own descriptions, a page-level classification of every scan into handwriting and typescript, and a growing corpus of machine transcriptions (currently 322 files, 5,454 scans). It also reports a way to measure handwritten-text-recognition accuracy in an archive with no ground truth. Archives of the typewriter era often preserve one text twice, as manuscript and as a typed copy; transcribing both and comparing isolates the reading error, since source and pipeline are identical and only page difficulty differs. Across 294 such pairs from 27 files, two readings of a handwritten page agree on a median 37% of words. On two files that also have a published edition the estimate can be checked against ground truth: it is unbiased to within a percentage point and ranks pages as the truth does (rank correlation 0.92 where the edition is a faithful witness). This bounds use: two variants of one work here share 19% of words, below the rate at which two readings of a single page agree, so the redactions cannot be collated word by word at this quality. That negative result is reported as such, and the constraint is built into the tool.

Parsing historical documents with complex, non-standard layouts remains a fundamental bottleneck in large-scale archival digitization. Unlike modern typography, historical newspapers exhibit severe physical degradation and highly irregular page structures that confound even state-of-the-art vision-language models, presenting severe out-of-distribution challenges. We address this gap with an automated pipeline specifically designed for parsing historical newspapers, documents characterized by particularly intricate multi-column layouts. Our approach combines a fine-tuned YOLO architecture for layout analysis and block detection, trained on 1,426 fully human-annotated scanned pages, with a novel semantic assembly module that reconstructs articles by jointly modeling lexical-semantic similarity via TF-IDF, visual embeddings from our fine-tuned YOLO, and geometric layout constraints. This multi-modal integration yields state-of-the-art performance, achieving an F1 score of 0.904 on block-to-article mapping. Notably, end-to-end evaluation against vision-language models (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B and Qwen3.6-Plus) demonstrates that PereStruct achieves substantially higher fidelity (BLEU approximately 0.96 vs 0.34), validating that modular architectures excel where generic VLMs fail on complex historical layouts. To support reproducibility and advance research in this domain, we release both the training corpus of 599 annotated pages and a curated PereStruct benchmark of 93 pages with expert-verified ground-truth block-to-article mappings. This framework establishes a robust foundation for high-fidelity digitization and semantic reconstruction of complex archival materials.

Evaluating structured-information extraction from historical documents at scale requires high-precision ground-truth annotations, yet traditional manual labeling is expensive and fully automated pipelines built on large language models are prone to hallucination. We propose Double Triangle Annotation, a two-layer human-in-the-loop framework that leverages cross-model consensus to automate the majority of annotation work while ensuring high-precision outputs. In the first layer, two architecturally independent Multimodal Large Language Models annotate each document in parallel; when they agree, the label is auto-accepted, and disagreements are routed to a human jury. A second layer cross-checks two such systems against each other, escalating residual conflicts to a domain expert. The framework rests on a single assumption -- error independence between models -- requires no distributional priors or task-specific calibration, and becomes more autonomous as model capability improves. On the Guides Rosenwald, a corpus of French medical directories spanning 1887-1906, the framework achieves a final Word Error Rate of 0.003. Applied at scale, model consensus auto-accepts over 85% of 13,595 fields. We release the resulting benchmark -- the first structured-extraction ground truth for the Rosenwald Guides -- to support future work on historical document processing.