Does a general vision--language model acquire specialized OCR ability by developing a new reading circuit or by reusing an existing mechanism? We address this question in the setting of full-sequence OCR, rather than local-answer retrieval. Using an evidence-grounded protocol with held-out causal interventions, we identify sparse and stable OCR-head sets in GLM-OCR, MinerU2.5, and PaddleOCR-VL-1.6. We then investigate the mechanistic origin of these OCR heads by comparing them with independently identified textual retrieval/copy heads in general VLMs. Across two general VLMs, visual OCR heads strongly overlap independently identified textual retrieval/copy heads, yielding untuned top-20 intersections of 73.3% and all-head Spearman correlations of 0.677-0.886. The overlap and causal interventions suggest that full-sequence OCR operates as dense sequential multimodal copy-and-paste, repeatedly retrieving visual evidence and routing it to the current output position. Finally, we examine how this shared circuit changes as a general VLM becomes an OCR specialist. Matched base-to-specialized comparisons show that OCR specialization largely preserves head identity, retaining 17-20 of the top 20 heads per task with all-head rank correlations of 0.874-0.942, while redistributing their functional and causal strengths.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Token-level visual attention during Qwen2-VL-2B ( Wang et al., 2024 ) OCR for generated tokens (a) “Checklist” and (b) “yellow.” Columns compare the top text-OCR head, the retrieval head L22H05, and a head outside both rankings. Blue boxes mark target evidence, and all heatmaps use one absolute scale.
Figure 2: Evidence-grounded discovery and causal validation. Visible characters, cell text, and formula glyphs define evidence patches E(z) ; only whole BPE tokens in exact free-generation match blocks are eligible. A head scores a hit when its global attention argmax falls inside the token evidence. Page-disjoint discoveries are then tested by held-out intervention against matched random sets.
Figure 3: Structural correspondence between independently identified OCR and retrieval/copy heads in Qwen2-VL-2B. Each point represents the same head’s retrieval and task-specific OCR rank percentiles. Orange points belong to both top-20 sets, blue rings to exactly one, and gray points to neither. Shaded bands mark the top-20 ranges. ρ denotes all-head Spearman correlation; ranks below the 50th percentile are compressed for readability.
Task
#Pairs
Target source
Matched heads
Non-target source
Text
184
4.476
0.658
0.004
Table
105
2.425
0.812
-0.003
Formula
128
2.498
0.168
-0.003
Table 1: Counterfactual value patching in Qwen2-VL-2B. Values are donor-directed next-token logit shifts. Target uses OCR–retrieval overlap heads at the target evidence; Random uses matched random heads; Non-target uses the same overlap heads at unrelated visual positions.
Figure 4: Qwen2-VL OCR specialization preserves 18/20 top heads in each task. Bar height shows identity retention; ρ is the all-head Spearman correlation, and mass is the pre → post top-20 OCR-score share.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Task
Prompt
Text
Perform OCR on this image. Output only the visible text in natural reading order, verbatim. Preserve case, punctuation, symbols, spacing, and line breaks. No commentary, labels, Markdown, or code fences.
Table
Transcribe the table into compact HTML. Return only one <table>...</table> element with rows in reading order. Use <tr> and <td> or <th>; preserve every cell’s text exactly and use rowspan or colspan only when visually required. Use no other attributes, prose, Markdown, or code fence.
Formula
Read only the mathematical expression shown. Respond with its exact LaTeX transcription between $$ delimiters. Keep fractions, roots, superscripts, subscripts, accents, relations, brackets, and punctuation. Add no explanation.
Appendix
Table 2: Complete deployment prompts for untuned Qwen2-VL, selected by prompt calibration.
Task
Prompt
Text
Perform OCR on this image. Output only the visible text in natural reading order, verbatim. Preserve case, punctuation, symbols, spacing, and line breaks. No commentary, labels, Markdown, or code fences.
Table
Perform table OCR and output only canonical HTML beginning with <table> and ending with </table>. Preserve row and column order and all visible cell text. Use only table, tr, td, and th tags plus necessary rowspan/colspan attributes. Do not add commentary or a code block.
Formula
Transcribe the displayed mathematical formula exactly into LaTeX. Return one LaTeX string only, enclosed in .... Preserve all symbols, operators, scripts, delimiters, and visible terminal punctuation. Do not explain and do not use a code fence.
Appendix
Table 3: Deployment prompts for untuned Qwen3-VL. The text prompt is identical to that of Qwen2-VL (Table 2 ).
Model
OCR task
Retrieval heads
Top-20 overlap
Spearman
OCR in R
Qwen2-VL
Text
31
13/20
0.846
92.3%
Table
31
17/20
0.886
93.8%
Formula
31
15/20
0.677
85.7%
Qwen3-VL
Text
30
15/20
0.835
74.1%
Table
30
15/20
0.859
84.6%
Formula
30
13/20
0.806
83.3%
Appendix
Table 4: Retrieval/copy reuse in untuned generalist VLMs. “OCR in R ” is threshold-set containment; all top-20 overlaps exceed architecture-specific random expectation with hypergeometric p<10−11 .
Figure 5: Head-wise OCR scores for text, tables, and formulas in three OCR specialists. High-scoring heads are sparse and architecture dependent, with task-dependent variation in their locations and strengths.
Task
TF ρ
TF top-4
FG top-20
Text
0.9931
4/4
20/20
Table content
0.9951
4/4
20/20
Formula
0.9944
4/4
19/20
Appendix
Table 5: GLM-OCR cross-fold discovery stability. TF is the teacher-forced diagnostic and FG is free-generation replay.
Model
Text only
Table only
Formula only
Text–Table only
Text–Formula only
Table–Formula only
All three
GLM-OCR
4
2
7
5
0
2
11
MinerU2.5
3
1
2
1
0
2
16
PaddleOCR-VL-1.6
3
0
3
3
0
3
14
Appendix
Table 6: Exact Venn partitions of the task-specific top-20 OCR-head sets. Pairwise-only columns contain heads shared by exactly the named two tasks, excluding the third.
Top-20 ablation
Random ablation
Model
Base
Score
Δ
Score
Δ
Text (NED)
GLM-OCR
0.033
0.337
+0.303
0.086
+0.053
MinerU2.5
0.027
0.070
+0.043
0.026
−0.001
PaddleOCR-VL-1.6
0.021
0.621
+0.600
0.023
+0.002
Table (TEDS)
Appendix
Table 7: Held-out causal validation in specialized OCR models. Top-20 and Random denote the targeted and matched-random ablation conditions, respectively. Score is the performance after intervention, and Δ is the signed change from the intact baseline. Random results are averaged over five head sets exactly matched to the target set’s per-layer head counts for all three tasks.
Figure 6: Causal effects of OCR-head ablation across three specialized OCR models. (a) Task-specific damage from ablating the discovered top-20 heads and layer-matched random heads. Text, table, and formula use Δ NED, TEDS drop, and CDM drop, respectively. (b) Cross-task transfer of the task-specific top-20 OCR heads. Columns indicate the discovery task and rows the evaluation task.
Set
#H
Δ Acc.
Random
Excess
p
Text–Retrieval
12
0.56
0.16
0.39
.143
Table–Retrieval
15
0.22
0.21
0.01
.667
Formula–Retrieval
6
0.22
0.11
0.11
.381
Appendix
Table 8: POPE specificity control. Values are accuracy drops in percentage points, pooled over Random, Popular, and Adversarial splits. Random denotes the mean of 20 layer-matched controls; Excess is the targeted drop minus the random mean.
Figure 7: Token-level examples in MinerU2.5. Rows show text, table, and formula recognition. (a) Input crops with target evidence outlined in blue. (b) Visual attention of L16H03 at the selected generation step. Evidence and top-5 percentages are normalized by total attention to visual patches; argmax denotes the most-attended visual patch. (c) Corresponding output excerpts before and after task-specific top-20 ablation, with single-head effects reported separately. Input crops show local evidence and need not contain the full output excerpt.
Backbone
Task
Common N
Qualified B → S
Top-20 overlap
Spearman
Qwen2-VL
Text
319
17 → 20
18/20
0.9164
Table
290
16 → 20
18/20
0.9423
Formula
312
8 → 10
18/20
0.8736
Qwen3-VL
Text
319
27 → 33
17/20
0.9349
Table
299
26 → 34
20/20
0.9372
Formula
317
18 → 15
19/20
0.8946
Appendix
Table 9: Matched specialization replicates across Qwen generations. Discovery is computed independently in each configuration on common valid samples.
Model/task
Eval.
k
Base
B heads
S heads
Rnd mean
Qwen3-VL Text
Base
5
0.012
0.022 ( +0.010 )
0.019 ( +0.006 )
0.018 ( +0.005 )
10
0.012
0.028 ( +0.015 )
0.018 ( +0.005 )
0.019 ( +0.006 )
20
0.012
0.409 ( +0.397 )
0.303 ( +0.290 )
0.020 ( +0.007 )
Qwen3-VL Text
Specialized
5
0.019
0.022 ( +0.002 )
0.024 ( +0.005 )
0.018 ( −0.001 )
10
0.019
0.022 ( +0.003 )
0.022 ( +0.002 )
0.019 ( 0.000 )
20
0.019
0.334 ( +0.315 )
0.439 ( +0.420 )
0.020 ( +0.001 )
Appendix
Table 10: Held-out cross-ranked causal effects. Cells report performance after ablation, with signed change from base in parentheses. Text uses NED ( ↓ ), tables use TEDS ( ↑ ), and formulas use CDM ( ↑ ). B/S heads are ranked in the base/specialized configuration. Rnd mean averages ten layer-matched random control sets (five matched to each ranking in head count and per-layer allocation).
Task
Common N
Qualified G → S
Top-20 overlap
Spearman
Weighted layer G → S
Text
319
17 → 20
18/20
0.9164
18.695 → 18.681
Table
290
16 → 20
18/20
0.9423
18.754 → 18.697
Formula
312
8 → 10
18/20
0.8736
17.227 → 17.566
Appendix
Table 11: Matched OCR-head discovery before (G) and after specialization in Qwen2-VL. Top-head overlap, all-head rank correlation, and score-weighted layer position show little change in head organization.
Figure 8: Worked examples of A←B source-identity replacement. Image boxes mark changed glyphs, not attention intensity; links associate donor and recipient target regions. Panel (d) traces image and prefix processing to Q/K/V: A’s attention is fixed (green), non-target Values are retained (blue), and B supplies target Values only (orange). The overlap sets contain 13, 17, and 15 heads for text, tables, and formulas. Logits shift toward the donor without changing the next-token argmax.
Vision-language models (VLMs) can read text from images, but where does this optical character recognition (OCR) information enter the language processing stream? We investigate the OCR routing mechanism across three architecture families (Qwen3-VL, Phi-4, InternVL3.5) using causal interventions. By computing activation differences between original images and text-inpainted versions, we identify architecture-specific OCR bottlenecks whose dominant location depends on the vision-language integration strategy: DeepStack models (Qwen) show peak sensitivity at mid-depth (about 50%) for scene text, while single-stage projection models (Phi-4, InternVL) peak at early layers (6-25%), though the exact layer of maximum effect varies across datasets. The OCR signal is remarkably low-dimensional: PC1 captures up to 72.9% of variance. Crucially, principal component analysis (PCA) directions learned on one dataset transfer to others, demonstrating shared text-processing pathways. Surprisingly, in models with modular OCR circuits (notably Qwen3-VL-4B), OCR removal can improve counting performance (up to +6.9 percentage points), suggesting OCR interferes with other visual processing in sufficiently modular architectures.
How do VLMs map from pixels to semantics? To understand this general question, we focus on a narrow one: studying how VLMs perform optical character recognition (OCR). Across four models, we identify attention heads causally necessary for OCR, and discover that these are in fact general-purpose heads that output interpretable semantic features across all image tokens. For example, pointing these heads at an image token containing the word "bike" causes Qwen3-VL-8B to output "bike," but pointing them at a bird wing causes the model to output the token "feathers." We collapse these heads' attention weights into a single verbalization lens transformation that reveals interpretable semantic features in hidden states across all layers. When combined with projection to vocabulary space, we can obtain interpretable labels starting from layer 0, showing that image representations are in fact aligned with language in early layers. We find that we can also use the inverse of this transformation to edit non-word concepts, e.g., replacing a tractor with a revolver in a naturalistic image, providing causal evidence that this subspace is useful for more than just OCR. Our results are an example of how the study of specific mechanisms can shed light on broader interpretability problems.
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.
Antonia Karamolegkou, Nicolas Angleraud, Benoît Sagot +1