Beyond Recognition: Compact Multi-Domain Arabic Manuscript HTR with Candidate-Selection Analysis and Evidence-Preserving Review
Organizations: University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq
Abstract
Historical Arabic manuscript transcription is not only a recognition problem. A usable scholarly system must cope with shifting hands and layouts, preserve uncertain readings, distinguish visual evidence from linguistic plausibility, and record the researcher's final decision. We present Phoenix, a 4.99-million-parameter CNN-BiLSTM-CTC recognizer, and Athar, an evidence-aware review workflow built around it. Phoenix is adapted across archival, Maghrebi, and historical manuscript domains using document-aware replay, an expanded 81-symbol codec, and forgetting guards that reject checkpoints that improve a new domain at unacceptable cost to previous domains. In a pre-specified held-out comparison against the preceding checkpoint, frozen before evaluation and scored with greedy decoding and raw references, Phoenix reduced CER from 22.12% to 17.86% on 10,594 Agapet lines and from 17.72% to 11.84% on 11,684 Omar lines, while regressing from 10.39% to 10.72% on 164 TariMa lines. Across the two large held-out sets, character-weighted CER fell from 19.98% to 14.93%, a 25.3% relative error reduction. A separate same-protocol development diagnostic found the lowest CER for Phoenix on four of four comparable domains (9.59% unweighted macro CER). An N-best diagnostic revealed a 2.15-point oracle gap between beam decoding and Oracle@25, while neural text rerankers, consensus MBR, CTC-posterior quality estimation, and local pre-CTC hidden-state quality estimation recovered less than 4% of this gap. Athar therefore preserves the visual reading, exposes bounded alternatives, uses local language models conservatively, retrieves source parallels with unique, ambiguous, or abstain states, and exports auditable TEI and PAGE-XML records. The results support evaluating manuscript HTR as auditable evidence management rather than silent text replacement.
Figures & tables
| Tier | Permitted interpretation |
|---|---|
| Sealed evaluation | Frozen exp8 vs. exp9; raw references; greedy decoding; no tuning after opening. Primary release evidence. |
| Development diagnostic | Identical line inputs and protocol across models; some guards influenced selection. Domain diagnosis, not final generalization. |
| Historical / server diagnostic | Aggregated diagnostic result preserved from historical development records; informative for decoding analysis, not primary held-out generalization. |
| Additional server benchmark | Owner-run Phoenix–Baseer aggregates; incomplete reproducibility bundle. Preliminary comparison only. |
| Dataset | Domain | Training/adaptation role | Separation unit | Evaluation role |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muharaf | 19th–20th c. archival handwriting | Replay and archival adaptation | Document | Development guard; not a new sealed result |
| RASAM | Maghrebi manuscripts | Core training and replay | Manuscript/page manifests | Development guard and historical results |
| TariMa | Diverse Maghrebi/historical hands | Replay | Manuscript where available | 164-line sealed release set |
| Agapet | 13th–17th c. Christian Arabic | SA-418 adaptation | Manuscript | Sin423 + BnF Arabe 76 sealed set |
| Omar | 1951–1965 archival memoirs | Six-document adaptation side | Document | Eleven-document sealed set |
| Set | Lines | exp8 CER | exp9 CER | CER | exp9 WER | Word acc. exp8 exp9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agapet | 10,594 | 22.124 | 17.861 | 58.798 | 23.91 33.23 | |
| Omar | 11,684 | 17.718 | 11.835 | 42.917 | 33.40 46.83 | |
| TariMa | 164 | 10.386 | 10.718 | 38.886 | 51.32 49.23 |
| Guard | Lines | Original Muharaf | exp6 | exp8 | Phoenix / exp9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agapet | 991 | 33.15 / 16.62 | 23.82 / 24.71 | 20.08 / 33.58 | 9.47 / 67.40 |
| Omar | 1,143 | 9.26 / 60.08 | 26.88 / 21.25 | 12.06 / 53.90 | 8.91 / 63.95 |
| RASAM | 1,789 | 39.01 / 12.06 | 9.04 / 66.78 | 7.95 / 69.90 | 7.67 / 70.46 |
| Muharaf | 920 | 13.28 / 64.15 | 36.47 / 15.74 | 12.72 / 58.30 | 12.31 / 59.32 |
| Unweighted macro | 4,843 | 23.68 / 38.23 | 24.05 / 32.12 | 13.20 / 53.92 | 9.59 / 65.28 |
| Decoder | Norm. CER | Norm. WER | Exact lines |
|---|---|---|---|
| Greedy | 11.52 | 38.20 | 10.5 |
| Archive LM | 11.04 | 32.09 | 14.6 |
| Mixed LM | 10.89 | 31.88 | 14.8 |
| Mismatched general LM | 14.78 | 44.98 | 5.1 |
| Metric | Phoenix | Baseer__Nakba | Observed difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Macro CER, 4 domains (incl. task-matched Omar) | 9.71% | 28.67% | points |
| Macro CER, 3 domains (non-Omar, descriptive) | 10.65% | 38.07% | points |
| WER (aggregation denominator not supplied) | 34.37% | 59.52% | points |
| Exact-line accuracy | 13.38% | 26.38% | Baseer points |
| Parameters | 4.99M | 3.75B | Phoenix smaller |
| Model file | 19.94 MB | 7.53 GB | Phoenix smaller |
| Method | Dev CER (%) | Scientific Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Greedy | 8.131 | Baseline local path selection |
| Beam (width 10) | 7.966 | Standard CTC beam search |
| Length-only control | 7.977 | Length normalization alone does not explain gains |
| Neural Reranker v1 | 7.883 | BiGRU with listwise soft-target training (small dev gain, ) |
| Neural Reranker v2 | 7.901 | Hybrid listwise + pairwise loss (does not outperform v1) |
| Medoid consensus | 8.007 | Hypothesis-space consensus harms top-1 selection |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Configuration | RASAM-test CER (%) | TariMa-test CER (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Greedy (no LM) | 7.48 | 10.27 |
| Order-8 LM | 6.76 | 8.68 |
| Decoder Mode | D1 Clean | D2 Demo | D3 Auto | Mean CER (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greedy (no LM) | 0.39 | 4.34 | 3.61 | 2.78 |
| Always-LM | 0.56 | 2.56 | 2.28 | 1.80 |
| Gated LM (conf ) | 0.30 | 3.29 | 3.41 | 2.33 |
| Top Percentile of Lines | Share of Recoverable Errors (%) |
|---|---|
| Top 5% | 12.09 |
| Top 10% | 21.63 |
| Top 20% | 37.61 |
| Top 30% | 53.60 |
| Top 50% | 76.24 |
| Domain | Beam CER (%) | Oracle@25 CER (%) | Gap ( pp) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agapet | 8.923 | 6.223 | 2.700 |
| Muharaf | 12.232 | 9.904 | 2.328 |
| Omar | 7.858 | 5.280 | 2.578 |
| RASAM | 7.424 | 5.455 | 1.969 |
| TariMa | 2.862 | 1.376 | 1.486 |
| Unweighted Mean | 7.860 | 5.648 | 2.212 |
| Domain | Validation NLL | Validation PPL |
|---|---|---|
| Agapet | 2.472 | 11.85 |
| Muharaf | 2.640 | 14.02 |
| Omar | 2.700 | 14.87 |
| RASAM | 2.520 | 12.43 |
| TariMa | 2.506 | 12.26 |
| Overall | 2.568 | 13.04 |
Historical Document Processing
Historical document processing uses AI to transcribe, structure, restore, and analyze manuscripts, books, newspapers, and archival records.
See all 75 papers