When Simpler Is Better: Evaluating Translation Pipelines for Medieval Latin Manuscripts

Recent work has shown that Vision-Language Models (VLMs) used for optical character recognition (OCR) can generate plausible but visually unsupported text, suggesting reliance on language priors. Comparing open-weight VLMs with traditional OCR baselines on low-resource Ancient Greek critical editions, we show that VLM errors often remain fluent even when wrong, producing plausible Greek substitutions where traditional engines produce local recognition noise. To analyze visual evidence during decoding, we introduce controlled image perturbations and token-level grounding measures based on conditional versus image-free decoding distributions. Under character-level perturbations, VLMs diverge sharply from the perturbed ground truth while traditional OCR remains comparatively faithful; however, token-level analysis shows that prior reliance is model-specific: in an OCR-specialist model, fluent lexical errors are produced with little reliance on the image, whereas general-purpose VLMs remain conditioned on the visual input even when wrong. Decode-time interventions fail to reliably restore grounding, while post-OCR language-model correction improves several systems only by repairing text after generation. Our results extend prior evidence of OCR language-prior reliance to low-resource historical documents and a broader set of models, showing that fluent output is not necessarily visually grounded and motivating interpretability-driven evaluation beyond aggregate accuracy.

For scientific progress, we need benchmarks that test the limits of state-of-the-art models, and evaluation methods that inform us about failure cases. As models get stronger, standard benchmarks for machine translation are approaching saturation. Further, automatic translation metrics are unreliable, vulnerable to reward-hacking, and provide unactionable assessments. Even gold human evaluation is not problem-free, because it often lacks reproducibility, objectivity, and scalability. Overall, this prevents us from tracking objective progress in the field and identifying pathways for improvement. We introduce the Last Translation Benchmark, a collection of human-authored and peer-reviewed examples (texts, images, audio, videos) that break leading machine translation models. We also present a new evaluation approach: each example comes with handcrafted verification rules describing concrete failure cases on that example, therefore allowing reliable and actionable future evaluation. The Last Translation Benchmark is a live dataset that accepts ongoing contributions. The latest version is LTBv1, containing accepted contributions prior to September 1st 2026, with future releases planned as new data is continuously collected.

Optical Character Recognition (OCR) is a key component in the digitization of historical archives. Recently, Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have emerged as strong alternatives to traditional OCR systems, achieving state-of-the-art performance on standard benchmarks. However, their suitability for archival transcription remains insufficiently understood. In this work, we benchmark traditional OCR systems and VLM-based approaches on the Berrutti dataset, a challenging collection of Uruguayan dictatorship-era documents derived from microfilm scans. While VLMs consistently outperform traditional methods in terms of Character Error Rate (CER) and Word Error Rate (WER), we show that these improvements hide a more complex picture. Through a detailed qualitative analysis, we uncover systematic failure modes that are invisible to standard metrics, including orthographic normalization, spurious content generation, and semantic substitutions that preserve fluency while altering meaning. Errors affecting named entities are particularly critical, as they can introduce substantial semantic distortions with minimal impact on CER and WER. These findings reveal a critical gap between quantitative OCR performance and transcription fidelity in real-world archival settings, and highlight the need for evaluation frameworks that go beyond character-level accuracy to capture the semantic reliability of generated transcriptions.