When Do VLMs Help Arabic Manuscript OCR? A Cross-Dataset Study
Organizations: University of Doha for Science and Technology, Doha, Qatar · Qatar Computing Research Institute, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar · Northwestern University in Qatar, Doha, Qatar
Abstract
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.
Figures & tables
| Study | Script | VLM setting | Corrector | Diacritics | Cross-dataset |
| European and multilingual historical OCR | |||||
| Greif et al. 2025 | Latin | ZS | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Kim et al. 2025 | Latin | ZS | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Crosilla et al. 2025 | Latin multi | ZS | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Semnani et al. 2025 | 46 languages | FT | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Kanerva et al. 2025 | Latin and Finnish | – | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Dataset | Content | Scale | Annotation | Access |
| Muharaf * | Historical Arabic manuscripts, 19th–21st c. | 1,600 pages | Line + polygon | Public |
| RASAM 2 * | Maghribi manuscripts | 300 pages | Line, PAGE-XML | Public |
| KHATT * | Modern Arabic handwriting | 1,000 writers | Paragraph | Restricted |
| Madinah * | Ancient manuscripts, 8 books | 40 pages | Page | Public |
| KITAB-Bench * | Multi-domain Arabic | 3,760 samples | Mixed, 13 subsets | Public |
| SARD * | Synthetic printed Arabic | 996 samples | Character + word | Public |
| Model | Paradigm | Parameters | Architecture |
| Tesseract 5 ( Smith 2007 ) | Traditional OCR | — | Rule-based + LSTM |
| Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct ( Bai et al. 2025a ) (Qwen) | General-purpose VLM | 7B | Transformer VL |
| Fanar-2-Oryx-IVU ( FANAR Team et al. 2026 ) (Fanar-2) | Arabic-tuned VLM | 7B | Qwen2.5-VL fine-tuned |
| QARI-OCR ( Wasfy et al. 2025 ; Bai et al. 2025b ) | OCR-tuned VLM | 4B | Qwen3-VL-4B + LoRA |
| Model | With diacritics | Without diacritics | ||
| CER | WER | CER | WER | |
| Traditional OCR | ||||
| Tesseract 5 | 69.6 | 103.7 | 69.2 | 103.6 |
| Vision-Language Models | ||||
| Qwen2.5-VL-7B | 86.7 | 108.0 | 70.4 | 104.6 |
| Fanar-2-Oryx-IVU | 87.7 | 109.0 | 70.8 | 105.6 |
| Model | Muharaf line | Madinah page | CER | ||
| CER | WER | CER | WER | ||
| Tesseract 5 | 69.2 | 103.6 | 51.0 | 85.7 | |
| Qwen2.5-VL-7B | 70.4 | 104.6 | 40.7 | 80.2 | |
| Fanar-2 | 70.8 | 105.6 | 39.6 | 78.7 | |
| Condition | CER | WER | CER |
| Standalone systems | |||
| Tesseract 5 | 69.2 | 103.6 | — |
| Qwen2.5-VL-7B (Qwen) | 70.4 | 104.6 | +1.2 |
| Fanar-2-Oryx-IVU (Fanar-2) | 70.8 | 105.6 | +1.6 |
| OCR-conditioned correctors | |||
| Tesseract Qwen | 60.6 | 93.9 | |
| Condition | CER | Edit-distance signal |
| Tesseract alone | 69.2 | — |
| Qwen standalone | 70.4 | — |
| Tesseract Qwen with real prior and image | 60.6 | baseline |
| Shuffled prior with real image | 81.6 | Distance to wrong prior 64.5% |
| Real prior with image withheld | 73.9 | Distance to real prior 29.9% |
| Dataset | Setting | Tess. | Best VLM | Best corr. | Rel. | Gap |
| SARD | Clean printed | 4.7 | Qwen 3.8 | T Q 2.6 | +31.6% | +0.9 |
| KITAB-Bench | Mixed | 40.2 | Qwen 38.7 | T Q 32.7 | +15.5% | +1.5 |
| Muharaf | Historical Naskh | 69.2 | Qwen 70.4 | T Q 60.6 | +12.4% | |
| RASAM 2 | Historical Maghribi | 72.2 | Qwen 63.9 | T Q 75.8 | % | +8.3 |
| QNL Books | Aged printed | 33.1 | Fanar-2 19.2 | T F 15.5 | +19.3% | +13.9 |
| Students Essays | Modern student HW | 77.4 | Qwen 49.4 | T F 86.7 | % | +28.0 |
| Condition | CER | WER |
| Tesseract 5 | 40.2 | 77.3 |
| Qwen2.5-VL-7B | 38.7 | 57.5 |
| Tesseract Qwen | 32.7 | 51.9 |
| Subset | N | Tess. | Qwen | Corrector |
| arabicocr | 50 | 1.2 | 6.7 | 4.7 |
| hindawi | 200 | 16.5 | 21.2 | 15.6 |
| patsocr | 500 | 17.5 | 11.3 | 3.3 |
| isippt | 500 | 18.2 | 38.8 | 16.7 |
| synthesizear | 500 | 30.4 | 22.0 | 10.7 |
| onlinekhatt | 200 | 61.7 | 31.6 | 28.3 |
| Condition | CER | WER |
| Tesseract 5 | 33.1 | 63.9 |
| Qwen2.5-VL-7B | 20.1 | 35.4 |
| Fanar-2-Oryx-IVU | 19.2 | 34.7 |
| Tesseract Qwen | 19.9 | 36.5 |
| Tesseract Fanar-2 | 15.5 | 30.0 |
| Model | CER | WER | ||||
| +D | D | +D | D | |||
| Tesseract 5 | 69.6 | 69.2 | +0.4 | 103.7 | 103.6 | +0.1 |
| Qwen2.5-VL-7B | 86.7 | 70.4 | +16.3 | 108.0 | 104.6 | +3.4 |
| Fanar-2 | 87.7 | 70.8 | +16.9 | 109.0 | 105.6 | +3.4 |
| QARI-OCR v0.4.0 | 194.7 | 167.2 | +27.5 | 232.0 | 230.2 | +1.8 |
| Dataset | Qwen pp | Tess. pp |
| KHATT | +20.2 | — |
| Muharaf | +16.3 | +0.4 |
| RASAM 2 | +9.8 | +0.1 |
| KITAB-Bench | +6.9 | +1.5 |
| SARD | +2.9 | +2.3 |
| Preprocessing | CER | WER | CER |
| P1 Raw baseline | 70.4 | 104.6 | — |
| P5 Sharpen | 67.2 | 100.6 | % |
| P3 Contrast CLAHE | 71.3 | 103.3 | +1.3% |
| P8 Full pipeline | 72.3 | 109.7 | +2.7% |
| P4 Denoise | 72.4 | 104.0 | +2.8% |
| P2 Binarised | 72.8 | 106.3 | +3.4% |
| Condition | 512 tokens | 2048 tokens | ||
| CER | WER | CER | WER | |
| Tesseract 5 | 4.7 | 24.4 | 4.7 | 24.4 |
| Qwen2.5-VL-7B | 36.3 | 40.8 | 3.8 | 11.2 |
| Tesseract Qwen | 36.7 | 43.7 | 2.6 | 12.8 |
| Font | Tess. | Qwen 512 | Corrector 512 |
| Arial | 3.9 | 51.9 | 52.7 |
| Calibri | 4.0 | 52.7 | 53.0 |
| Scheherazade New | 4.4 | 12.5 | 13.7 |
| Sakkal Majalla | 4.5 | 27.1 | 28.4 |
| Traditional Arabic | 4.5 | 29.2 | 28.5 |
| Amiri | 7.7 | 24.0 | 23.2 |
| Condition | Median CER | Catastrophe rate | Corpus CER | Corpus CER + norep |
| Tesseract 5 | 77.4 | 0.0% | 76.3 | — |
| Qwen2.5-VL-7B | 55.8 | 28.0% | 199.0 | 66.6 |
| Fanar-2-Oryx-IVU | 56.7 | 27.5% | 183.3 | 66.9 |
| Tesseract Qwen | 90.9 | 30.5% | 228.6 | — |
| Tesseract Fanar-2 | 86.7 | 27.0% | 208.3 | — |
| Field | Naive prompt | Calibrated prompt | Category | ||
| Non-null | Rate | Non-null | Rate | ||
| Visual classification | |||||
| Language | 16/16 | 100.0 | 16/16 | 100.0 | Classification |
| Script type | 16/16 | 100.0 | 16/16 | 100.0 | Classification |
| Content extraction | |||||
| Subject | 16/16 | 100.0 | 3/16 | 18.8 | Content |
| Error type | Tess. | Qwen | Fanar-2 | QARI |
| Substitution | 49.4 | 45.3 | 44.3 | 16.6 |
| Omission | 47.7 | 11.9 | 11.9 | 4.1 |
| Diacritics | 2.7 | 27.0 | 27.3 | 16.9 |
| Hallucination | 0.1 | 15.9 | 16.5 | 62.4 |