Post-OCR Document Correction with Large Ensembles of Character Sequence-to-Sequence Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a novel method to extend sequence-to-sequence models to accurately process sequences much longer than the ones used during training while being sample- and resource-efficient, supported by thorough experimentation. To investigate the effectiveness of our method, we apply it to the task of correcting documents already processed with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) systems using sequence-to-sequence models based on characters. We test our method on nine languages of the ICDAR 2019 competition on post-OCR text correction and achieve a new state-of-the-art performance in five of them. The strategy with the best performance involves splitting the input document in character n-grams and combining their individual corrections into the final output using a voting scheme that is equivalent to an ensemble of a large number of sequence models. We further investigate how to weigh the contributions from each one of the members of this ensemble. Our code for post-OCR correction is shared at https://github.com/jarobyte91/post_ocr_correction.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it