Systematic Literature Review of Machine Learning Models and Applications for Text Recognition
Organizations: Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru 81310, Malaysia · Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, American International University-Bangladesh, 408/1, Kuratoli 1229, Bangladesh · Department of Electrical Engineering, Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering and Management Sciences, Quetta 87300, Pakistan · Faculty of Artificial Intelligence, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 54100, Malaysia
Abstract
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for text recognition using machine vision has significantly improved, particularly when handling heterogeneous textual data. Traditional OCR models struggle with script variations, writing styles, and degraded documents. Advancements in technology are leading to new AI models with improved architecture for handling multiple languages and complex data formats. Despite this progress, a comprehensive evaluation of OCR advancements remains limited. Based on the established preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, this literature review presents an extensive assessment of OCR research to trace the evolution of AI models over the past decade. It explores the transition in AI models, application domains, data types, linguistic coverage, and challenges. Through a detailed analysis of 97 selected studies published during January 2015 - January 2025, key OCR models are identified, and their performance, strengths, and limitations are analyzed. The findings highlight how OCR technologies have evolved to address structured and unstructured text, scene text recognition, and multilingual processing. Unresolved challenges include limited resources for underrepresented languages, high variability in handwritten text, visual similarity among characters, and constraints in real-time OCR applications. To address these issues, several promising approaches are proposed. Key suggestions include self-supervised learning, multimodal AI, automated machine learning (AutoML), AI-assisted postprocessing, tiny machine learning (TinyML), and the creation of joint corpora for script matching. The future recommendations aim to enhance OCR accuracy and tackle the challenges identified for real-time industrial applications. This study will guide future research and establish a foundation for OCR field.
Figures & tables
| Criteria Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Period | Focus on recent advancements in OCR. Inclusion: Publications from January 2015 to January 2025. Exclusion: Articles published before 2015. |
| Language | Only English language articles are included. Exclusion: The articles published in languages other than English. |
| Type of literature | Only high-quality, peer-reviewed sources are considered. Exclusion: Grey literature such as reports, government documents, working papers, and non-peer-reviewed sources. |
| Type of source | Only peer-reviewed journal and conference papers are included. Exclusion: Books, preprints, and non-peer-reviewed articles. |
| Accessibility | Studies must be accessible from major academic databases (IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, ACM Digital Library). Exclusion: Articles behind paywalls without institutional access. |
| Relevance to RQs | Articles must contribute to at least two predefined research questions. Exclusion: Articles that do not address at least two research questions. |
| Source | Initial Results | Retrieved Articles |
|---|---|---|
| Web of Science | 1923 | 870 |
| Scopus | 9039 | 685 |
| Google Scholar | 21100 | 40 |
| IEEE Xplore | 10149 | 689 |
| SpringerLink | 2480 | 509 |
| ScienceDirect | 3121 | 88 |
| Model Type | Architecture | Datasets Used | Text Type / Language(s) | Performance (Accuracy) | Strength / Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVM [ 73 ] , [ 1 ] , [ 74 ] , [ 75 ] , | SVM-MLP-ETC, NCC, HOG-SVM | 286 Font Packs, Bangla Handwritten Dataset | Printed / Handwritten (English, Bangla) | 60.6% - 94.53% | Works well for structured fonts but struggles with handwritten text and complex scripts |
| ANN [ 76 ] , [ 77 ] , [ 78 , 79 ] | Feedforward NN, Backpropagation NN, Hopfield-ANN | MNIST, CROHME, EMNIST, Picture Editor Dataset | Printed / Handwritten (English, Arabic) | 92% - 100% | Effective in basic OCR but lacks generalization for large-scale real-world datasets |
| Neural Fuzzy System [ 80 , 81 ] | IT2NFS-SPSA, ANFIS | Alphabetic and Numeric Datasets, Burmese OCR | Printed (English, Burmese) | 7.25% - 98.20% | Reduces computational cost compared to traditional fuzzy systems but limited in scalability |
| CNN [ 82 , 83 , 84 , 50 , 31 , 85 ] | VGG16, CRNN, Inception V3, ResNet50, Multi-CNN | MJSynth, Kaggle, IAM, BanglaLekha-Isolated, CMATERdb, EMNIST | Printed/Handwritten (English, Arabic, Tamil, Bangla, Gujarati, Devanagari) | 57.2% - 99.76% | Strong for printed OCR, but struggles with handwritten cursive text and script complexity |
| LSTM/BLSTM [ 51 ] , [ 14 ] , [ 86 ] , [ 87 ] , [ 88 ] , [ 89 ] , [ 90 ] , [ 91 ] , [ 92 ] , [ 93 ] | Bi-LSTM, Gated-CNN-BLSTM, Tesseract LSTM | Medical Records, EMNIST, IAM, BCSD | Long-Sequenced Text (English, Arabic, German, Indonesian) | 91% - 99.94% | Worked well for long-sequence text, but require high computational resources |
| Transformer [ 94 , 53 , 84 , 23 ] | Vision Transformer (ViT), TrOCR, CharFormer | Shotor, Sadri, Born-Digital, LicenseNet | Multilingual (Chinese, English, Persian) | 77.25% - 99.98% | Outperforms CNNs/LSTMs in multilingual OCR, but computationally expensive |
| Model | Application | Challenges Reported | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| CNN | Multiple studies on various languages (e.g., Arabic, Bangla, Telugu, Tamil, Persian, Urdu, Gujarati, Devanagari, Javanese and Swedish) | Small text size, blurry images, non-horizontal text, complex character shapes, compound characters, diacritics, connected characters, font variations, low-quality images, and overlapping text. | [ 82 , 123 , 85 , 124 , 125 , 4 , 16 ] |
| DNN | Studies on OCR for different languages and document types | High computational cost, large feature matrices, memory inefficiency, data imbalance, and difficulty in recognizing handwritten text. | [ 126 , 17 , 127 ] |
| LSTM | Studies on handwritten OCR, license plate recognition, and document processing | Similar character shapes, joint characters, varying orientations, illumination conditions, font and background variations, and computational resource limitations. | [ 128 , 129 , 130 , 90 , 89 , 88 , 51 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 ] |
| SVM | Printed Arabic OCR and Bangla OCR studies | Feature extraction challenges, low contrast images, and difficulty handling multiple font types. | [ 136 , 73 , 137 ] |
| ANN | Language-oriented OCR implementations for Arabic, Persian, and Nepali scripts | Image quality issues, font variations, low resolution, and complex background interference. | [ 138 , 77 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 ] |
| Hybrid Models (CNN + LSTM, SVM + MLP, etc.) | Studies assessed ensemble approaches for OCR | Overfitting, increased training time, high memory requirements, and difficulty optimizing network layers. | [ 84 , 125 , 96 , 143 , 54 , 23 , 144 , 145 ] |
| Enhancement Capability | Bilateral Filter | CLAHE | Otsu Thresholding | Gaussian Blur | Unsharp Mask | Morph. Ops | Wavelet Transf. | GAN Methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise Reduction | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ◦ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Contrast Enhancement | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ◦ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Resolution Enhancement | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Blur Removal | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ◦ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Artifact Removal | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Illumination Correction | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |