Advances and Limitations in Open Source Arabic-Script OCR: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work presents an accuracy study of the open source OCR engine, Kraken, on the leading Arabic scholarly journal, al-Abhath. In contrast with other commercially available OCR engines, Kraken is shown to be capable of producing highly accurate Arabic-script OCR. The study also assesses the relative accuracy of typeface-specific and generalized models on the al-Abhath data and provides a microanalysis of the “error instances” and the contextual features that may have contributed to OCR misrecognition. Building on this analysis, the paper argues that Arabic-script OCR can be significantly improved through (1) a more systematic approach to training data production, and (2) the development of key technological components, especially multi-language models and improved line segmentation and layout analysis./Cet article présente une étude d’exactitude du moteur ROC open source, Krakan, sur la revue académique arabe de premier rang, al-Abhath. Contrairement à d’autres moteurs ROC disponibles sur le marché, Kraken se révèle être capable de produire de la ROC extrêmement exacte de l’écriture arabe. L’étude évalue aussi l’exactitude relative des modèles spécifiquement configurés à des polices et celle des modèles généralisés sur les données d’al-Abhath et fournit une microanalyse des « occurrences d’erreurs », ainsi qu’une microanalyse des éléments contextuels qui pourraient avoir contribué à la méreconnaissance ROC. S’appuyant sur cette analyse, cet article fait valoir que la ROC de l’écriture arabe peut être considérablement améliorée grâce à (1) une approche plus systématique d’entraînement de la production de données et (2) grâce au développement de composants technologiques fondamentaux, notammentl’amélioration des modèles multilingues, de la segmentation de ligne et de l’analyse de la mise en page.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".