Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Benchmarking Large Language Models for Handwritten Text Recognition

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.15195 v3 pith:BVB34ZNP submitted 2025-03-19 cs.CV

classification cs.CV
keywords modelslanguagetextabilityapproachautonomouslycorrectenglish
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Traditional machine learning models for Handwritten Text Recognition (HTR) rely on supervised training, requiring extensive manual annotations, and often produce errors due to the separation between layout and text processing. In contrast, Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) offer a general approach to recognizing diverse handwriting styles without the need for model-specific training. The study benchmarks various proprietary and open-source LLMs against Transkribus models, evaluating their performance on both modern and historical datasets written in English, French, German, and Italian. In addition, emphasis is placed on testing the models' ability to autonomously correct previously generated outputs. Findings indicate that proprietary models, especially Claude 3.5 Sonnet, outperform open-source alternatives in zero-shot settings. MLLMs achieve excellent results in recognizing modern handwriting and exhibit a preference for the English language due to their pre-training dataset composition. Comparisons with Transkribus show no consistent advantage for either approach. Moreover, LLMs demonstrate limited ability to autonomously correct errors in zero-shot transcriptions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. An HTR-LLM Workflow for High-Accuracy Transcription and Analysis of Abbreviated Latin Court Hand

    cs.DL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A four-stage HTR plus LLM pipeline transcribed four medieval Latin court cases with word error rates between 2% and 7%, though the metric and case selection make that range optimistic.

Pith tools