Entity-Aware Evaluation of OCR Systems for Historical Document Transcription

arXiv cs.CL Papers

Summary

该论文提出实体级分析作为补充视角来评估历史文档OCR质量,使用Berrutti档案馆175份文档及5,209条人工标注实体,比较了序列识别OCR系统、OCR专用视觉-语言模型和通用视觉-语言模型,发现不同评价标准下OCR排名会变化。

arXiv:2610.33004v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Optical Character Recognition (OCR) is essential for digitizing historical archives, yet standard evaluation metrics such as Character Error Rate (CER) do not necessarily reflect whether meaningful information, such as names, dates, and identifiers, is preserved. In this work, we investigate entitylevel analysis of OCR errors as a complementary perspective for evaluating OCR quality in historical documents. Using a publicly available benchmark of 175 documents from the Berrutti Archive, augmented with 5,209 manually annotated entity mentions that will be released upon acceptance, we compare sequence-recognition OCR systems, OCR-specialized vision-language models, and general-purpose vision-language models. Beyond global transcription accuracy, we analyze entity preservation and recoverability under varying character-level edit tolerances. Our experiments show that OCR rankings depend on the evaluation criterion: while Qwen 3.6 achieves the highest entity coverage across all tested tolerances, several systems with lower exact-match coverage recover substantially when small errors are tolerated, suggesting that many of their errors correspond to localized character-level deviations rather than fundamentally incorrect entity transcriptions. Conversely, some systems remain unable to recover many entities even under relaxed matching. These findings show that OCR quality cannot be fully characterized by aggregate transcription metrics alone and highlight the importance of evaluating how OCR errors affect the preservation and recoverability of meaningful information.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 10/28/26, 01:57 AM

# Entity-Aware Evaluation of OCR Systems for Historical Document Transcription
Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.33004](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.33004)
[View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.33004)

> Abstract:Optical Character Recognition \(OCR\) is essential for digitizing historical archives, yet standard evaluation metrics such as Character Error Rate \(CER\) do not necessarily reflect whether meaningful information, such as names, dates, and identifiers, is preserved\. In this work, we investigate entitylevel analysis of OCR errors as a complementary perspective for evaluating OCR quality in historical documents\. Using a publicly available benchmark of 175 documents from the Berrutti Archive, augmented with 5,209 manually annotated entity mentions that will be released upon acceptance, we compare sequence\-recognition OCR systems, OCR\-specialized vision\-language models, and general\-purpose vision\-language models\. Beyond global transcription accuracy, we analyze entity preservation and recoverability under varying character\-level edit tolerances\. Our experiments show that OCR rankings depend on the evaluation criterion: while Qwen 3\.6 achieves the highest entity coverage across all tested tolerances, several systems with lower exact\-match coverage recover substantially when small errors are tolerated, suggesting that many of their errors correspond to localized character\-level deviations rather than fundamentally incorrect entity transcriptions\. Conversely, some systems remain unable to recover many entities even under relaxed matching\. These findings show that OCR quality cannot be fully characterized by aggregate transcription metrics alone and highlight the importance of evaluating how OCR errors affect the preservation and recoverability of meaningful information\.

## Submission history

From: Diego Belzarena \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/cb1e81cb/2610.33004)\] \[via CCSD proxy\] **\[v1\]**Wed, 7 Oct 2026 12:12:01 UTC \(469 KB\)

Similar Articles

Equal CER, Unequal Damage: Severity-Weighted Character Error Rate for OCR

Hugging Face Daily Papers

论文提出 semCER,一种利用 LLM 评审按严重程度对字符编辑加权的 OCR 评估指标,相比标准 CER 更能贴合人类评分,并在英、越、中等 16 种语言上验证有效,同时发布了 6100 万条已评分编辑数据集与蒸馏打分模型。