LayoutLite: Token-Level Implicit Layout Analysis for Efficient Document OCR

Bicheng Wan; Xudong Liu; Yulin Jin

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 15 references

LayoutLite claims that a lightweight scorer can learn which visual tokens in a document image carry OCR-critical content, remove half of them before the language decoder runs, and still keep document-parsing accuracy within about one or two

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review

2026-08-01 05:29 UTC pith:CHNOCESL

load-bearing objection Useful plug-and-play token pruner for document OCR with honest ablations, but the headline 'implicit layout analysis' is effectively a distilled layout detector, and the robustness claims outrun the experiments. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22200 v1 pith:CHNOCESL submitted 2026-07-24 cs.CV

LayoutLite: Token-Level Implicit Layout Analysis for Efficient Document OCR

Xudong Liu , Bicheng Wan , Yulin Jin This is my paper

classification cs.CV

keywords document OCRvisual token pruningvision-language modelslayout analysisreinforcement learninginference efficiencyOmniDocBench

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tries to establish that the redundancy in VLM-based document OCR is mostly at the level of individual visual tokens, and that a lightweight scorer can learn to spot the redundant ones without human labels. It trains LayoutLite on the observation that OCR models treat visual tokens locally: deleting a token over a digit makes the model skip that digit, while deleting tokens in blank margins changes nothing. The scorer watches how each token's representation evolves across vision-encoder layers, assigns an importance score, and prunes low-scoring tokens before the language decoder, preserving the retained tokens' original spatial positions. On OmniDocBench v1.7, the paper reports that deleting up to half the visual tokens costs only about 1.3 points on one model and 2.2 on another, while cutting prefill latency, FLOPs, and KV-cache memory by over 40% with negligible module overhead. If correct, the result is a plug-and-play acceleration for frozen OCR models that needs only a few hundred unlabeled document images to train.

Core claim

The central claim is that implicit layout analysis at the token level is both learnable and sufficient for efficient document OCR. A 19M-parameter module, placed between the vision encoder and the language decoder, takes hidden states from four layers of the vision encoder, runs a 1D convolution across the layer dimension to capture each token's feature-evolution pattern, and outputs a per-token importance score. At inference, a per-image K-means split plus a global interpolation parameter converts scores into a binary mask; retained tokens keep their original spatial coordinates during position encoding, so page structure is preserved. The paper reports that on FireRed-OCR at 50% average co

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a per-token importance score in [0,1] per visual token, produced by a roughly 19M-parameter scoring network. It takes hidden states from four vision-encoder layers (6th, 12th, 18th, and 24th), applies a depthwise 1D convolution of kernel size 4 across the layer dimension to capture how each token's representation evolves, then two fully connected layers and a sigmoid. At inference, a per-image K-means clustering (K=2) of the predicted scores, together with a global interpolation parameter alpha, forms a binary pruning mask; retained tokens keep their original MRoPE spatial coordinates. Training couples a group-relative policy optimization objective whose reward is the Levens

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an off-the-shelf layout detector's boxes are a correct oracle for which tokens the OCR model truly needs, so a scorer distilled from those boxes will still prune correctly on layouts the detector has never seen.

What would settle it

A concrete test: evaluate the 50%-compression model on a set of 90-degree-rotated pages and pages where text falls outside standard layout boxes. If OCR quality there degrades far more than the reported 1.3-point drop on ordinary layouts, the claimed robustness to unconventional layouts and layout-detection failures is false.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

At 50% token removal on FireRed-OCR, prefill latency falls from 123.7 ms to 68.2 ms, prefill FLOPs from 21.3 to 12.2 TFLOPs, and KV cache from 512 MB to 284 MB, with only 2.1 ms and 0.06 TFLOPs of overhead from the module itself.
The same frozen-model recipe transfers to a second OCR-specialized VLM: at 50% compression the OmniDocBench score stays at 90.61 against a 92.82 baseline, with similar efficiency gains.
Text and formula recognition remain nearly stable up to 50% compression; table recognition is the most sensitive metric, so a safe compression budget depends on table density.
At low compression ratios (up to about 20%), the pruned model can score slightly above the unpruned baseline, which the authors attribute to reduced repetitive generation.
Compared with generic attention-based or pixel-space pruning methods, the token-level scoring approach keeps OCR quality substantially higher at the same compression ratio on the benchmark.
Inference: The ablation table makes LayoutLite look like a distilled layout detector: layout supervision adds up to 5.6 points at 50% compression, so the system's robustness is really the detector's robustness. A natural stress test is to train with GRPO alone on out-of-distribution layouts and measure the gap.
Inference: The locality observation implies visual tokens are local content carriers, not global context; if that holds more generally, compression ratios could be chosen per image from the score distribution rather than fixed globally, potentially raising the safe compression ceiling.
Inference: Since the module sits after the vision encoder, it should compose with pixel-space pruners that reduce tokens before encoding; the paper does not test this stacking, but the two mechanisms target different stages and could compound.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

Useful plug-and-play token pruner for document OCR with honest ablations, but the headline 'implicit layout analysis' is effectively a distilled layout detector, and the robustness claims outrun the experiments.

read the letter

Read this one if you care about cutting visual token costs in VLM document OCR. The headline is credible: a lightweight scorer trained to imitate layout-detector masks, with a GRPO-style consistency reward, removes up to half the visual tokens with a 1.3–2.2 point OmniDocBench drop and roughly halved prefill cost across two Qwen3-VL-family OCR models. What's genuinely new is combining RL-driven token scoring with layout-detector distillation for this specific task, and doing it as a plug-in that leaves the VLM frozen.

The paper is honest about its own ablations. Table 4 shows that the layout-supervision term is doing the heavy lifting: at 50% compression, GRPO-only training scores 85.86 versus 91.43 with the teacher. So 'implicit layout analysis' is really 'distilled PP-DocLayoutV3.' That doesn't make the method useless—it makes it a fast approximation of a layout detector at token level—but the Introduction's claim of robustness to rotated documents and layout-detection failures is asserted, not tested. No such experiments appear, and there's no explicit-layout baseline to compare against. If the teacher's boxes miss tables spilling into margins or rotated text blocks, the scorer will prune exactly the wrong tokens.

Three addressable gaps stop this from being an accept-as-is. First, no error bars or significance testing anywhere; the small improvements at 5–15% compression are within plausible noise. Second, the alpha parameter in the cluster-based threshold is tuned by binary search to hit the desired compression ratio, but the tuning set is unspecified. If alpha is optimized on OmniDocBench itself, part of the curve is fitted, and that needs to be stated. Third, the abstract's 'preserves almost the same score' understates the Logics-Parsing-V2 drop at 50% (92.82 to 90.61); it's modest, but it's real.

Credit: the locality observation in Fig. 3 is a useful sanity check; the efficiency accounting includes LayoutLite's own overhead; the FastV reimplementation under a unified protocol is the right way to compare; and training on 600 images on one A100 is a plausible low-cost recipe.

Verdict: the core efficiency/accuracy tradeoff at 50% looks solid enough to warrant serious referee time. I'd send it to review, with a request for variance estimates, an alpha-tuning statement, a robustness/layout-failure experiment or a softened claim, and an explicit-layout baseline. If those land, it's a solid within-field contribution.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LayoutLite, a lightweight plug-and-play visual-token pruning module for VLM-based document OCR. The module is inserted between a frozen vision encoder and language decoder, aggregates hidden states from multiple vision layers, and learns a per-token importance score. A cluster-based threshold with a global interpolation parameter α prunes low-scoring tokens while preserving their original positional encoding. Training uses a GRPO-style RL objective with a Levenshtein-ratio reward plus an auxiliary layout-supervision loss derived from PP-DocLayoutV3 bounding boxes. Experiments on OmniDocBench v1.7 with FireRed-OCR and Logics-Parsing-V2 report that up to 50% token compression preserves near-baseline OCR scores while reducing prefill latency, FLOPs, and KV cache by more than 40%, with a small overhead. Ablations show that layout supervision is a key training signal and that the cluster-based threshold generally outperforms a global threshold.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, LayoutLite would be a practical and model-agnostic way to accelerate frozen OCR VLMs, with a public code release and reproducible evaluation protocol (unified greedy decoding, reimplemented baselines). The work also provides a useful empirical demonstration that token-level pruning can preserve OCR-critical details. However, the central claim depends heavily on the off-the-shelf layout detector used only for training, and the robustness claims are asserted rather than tested. The absence of variance or significance measures weakens the quantitative claims, especially at low compression ratios where differences are tiny. The significance is moderate: the method is an engineering contribution with a clear efficiency story, but the 'implicit layout analysis' framing overstates the independence from explicit layout detection.

major comments (5)

[Table 4, Section 'Effects of Layout Supervision'] This ablation is load-bearing for the paper's central claim. At 50% compression, GRPO-only training scores 85.862, while adding layout supervision raises the score to 91.432 (+5.570). The 'preserves almost the same score' headline therefore holds only when the auxiliary loss is present, meaning the module is effectively distilling PP-DocLayoutV3's box semantics. The paper should either report a GRPO-only model that is trained with a better-tuned reward (e.g., different a, m, λ) and still achieves high accuracy, or explicitly revise the abstract/introduction to state that the method requires layout-supervision during training, not just RL. As written, the contrast with 'instead of relying on explicit document layout detection' is misleading.
[Introduction, paragraph 5 (robustness claim)] The Introduction states that LayoutLite 'remains robust under unconventional layouts, rotated documents, and layout detection failures,' but no experiment tests any of these scenarios. Since layout supervision is the dominant training signal, the transferability of the teacher's box semantics to unusual layouts is a core assumption. I request experiments with rotated inputs, synthetic layout-detector failures (e.g., boxes removed from content regions), or a distribution shift such as scanned rotated pages, to verify the claim. Without these, the robustness statement is not supported by the reported results.
[Tables 1–3, Section 'Evaluation setups'] All reported OmniDocBench scores are single-run averages over 1,651 images with no standard deviation, confidence intervals, or significance tests. At low compression ratios the differences are small -- e.g., 92.754 vs. 92.809 at 5% and 92.738 vs. 92.754 at 10% in Table 1 -- and could easily arise from evaluation noise or decoding-order effects. The claim that 'the overall score stays virtually unchanged ... and even improves slightly' is not statistically grounded. Please report bootstrap confidence intervals or paired significance tests, and if the improvements are not significant, temper the claim.
[Table 5, Section 'Effects of cluster-based threshold'] The text says cluster-based thresholding 'consistently' achieves comparable or better performance, but the table shows the opposite at higher compression ratios: at 35% global gives 92.398 vs. cluster 92.341, and at 40% global gives 92.269 vs. cluster 92.227. This is a small but systematic reversal. The claim should be restricted to the range where the advantage holds, or the cluster thresholding mechanism should be revisited. The current presentation overstates the consistency of the proposed strategy.
[Appendix (FastV, PixelPrune) and Section 'Main Results'] Since the training signal is dominated by PP-DocLayoutV3, a natural baseline is to use PP-DocLayoutV3's layout mask directly at inference, either as a hard pruning mask or with a score equal to distance-to-box. This would test what the learned module adds beyond simply applying the teacher at test time, and would contextualize the 'implicit vs. explicit' comparison. No such baseline is reported. Also, FastV is tested only on FireRed-OCR, and PixelPrune has a single fixed compression rate; the comparison is therefore incomplete. Adding these experiments would substantially strengthen the paper.

minor comments (4)

[Section 'Reinforcement Learning Method'] The Levenshtein ratio R_ocr is not formally defined; please specify whether it is 1 − normalized edit distance and how ties or empty outputs are handled. Also, the policy probability P(mask_i) is not fully specified — clarify the exact distribution over masks induced by Bernoulli sampling of the scores.
[Table 1 layout] The table structure places 'compression ratio (%)' as a single column but then lists 'FireRed-OCR' and 'FireRed-OCR + LayoutLite' as separate methods. This makes rows 0–50 ambiguous: are the 0–50 rows all with LayoutLite? Please annotate explicitly which rows correspond to the baseline and which to LayoutLite, and include all compression-ratio values consistently.
[Figure 3 caption] The caption repeats the same model output string ('Model Output:4 6 1 9 0') multiple times without indicating which deletion leads to which output; the figure is hard to follow. Please label each panel with the deleted region and the corresponding output.
[Section 'Structure of LayoutLite'] The notation H^i ∈ R^{N×D×M^2} is confusing: the hidden dimension D and PatchMerger factor M are mixed. Also, the sentence 'Merger(H^{i_k})' should define how the multi-layer tokens V are concatenated along a depth dimension before the Conv1D. Please clarify the tensor shapes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the headline OmniDocBench result is an external benchmark score, not an identity with any training target.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. LayoutLite trains a token scorer with a GRPO objective whose reward is R = LevRatio(Y_pruned, Y_full) - lambda*|r-a|^m, plus an auxiliary layout-supervision loss L_layout = mean(S_out) - mean(S_in). The paper's headline claim is the OmniDocBench v1.7 score under token compression, e.g., 91.432 at 50% compression versus the 92.753 baseline (Table 1). OmniDocBench annotations are ground-truth labels that are never used in training; neither R_ocr nor L_layout is equal to the benchmark score by construction. Table 4 shows that removing layout supervision lowers performance from 91.432 to 85.862 at 50% compression; that is an empirical ablation, not a definitional identity. It does indicate that the learned scorer depends heavily on the layout-detector signal, which is a legitimate scientific concern about how transferable the method is (and the Introduction's robustness claim about rotated documents and layout failures is untested), but that concern is about external validity, not circularity. The consistency reward does bias the module toward reproducing the frozen model's own output, but the reported benchmark scores are measured against ground truth, so the central quantitative claim is not forced by the fitting procedure. I found no load-bearing self-citation, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The derivation is self-contained as an empirical supervised/RL pipeline.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on about six hand-chosen or fitted numbers (alpha, a, m, lambda, the selected vision layers, and the training configuration) plus five domain assumptions. The two load-bearing assumptions are the locality of visual tokens (Fig. 3) and the layout-box informativeness assumption that makes PP-DocLayoutV3 an effective teacher (Table 4). The paper discloses most of these, but alpha's tuning set is unspecified, the layer-trajectory hypothesis is unmeasured, and no sensitivity analysis is given for a, m, and lambda.

free parameters (6)

alpha (global threshold interpolation) = not reported
Interpolates between the two K-means cluster centers per image (threshold = l_i + alpha*(r_i - l_i)); 'determined via binary search to satisfy the desired overall compression ratio' with the tuning dataset unspecified. If tuned on the evaluation images, the reported curves inherit test-set information. Method, cluster-based thresholding paragraph.
a (target compression ratio in reward) = 0.5
Center of the reward penalty R = LevRatio - lambda*|r-a|^m; fixed training budget at 50%. The paper asserts the exact value has little impact, but no sensitivity experiment is shown. Appendix Table 6.
m (reward penalty exponent) = 1.5
Controls smoothness of the compression penalty; hand-chosen. Appendix Table 6.
lambda (reward penalty weight) = 5.0
Hand-chosen; no sensitivity analysis. Appendix Table 6.
Selected vision layers for scoring = [6, 12, 18, 24]
Hand-selected subset of the 24 vision encoder layers feeding the scorer; no ablation over layer choice is provided. Appendix Table 8.
GRPO group size B and learning rate = B=5, lr=1e-3
Training configuration; single epoch on 600 images. Appendix Table 6.

axioms (5)

domain assumption Visual tokens in Qwen3-VL-based OCR encoders encode localized image content; deleting a token only removes its local content and does not globally perturb the decoder.
Central motivation (Fig. 3, Introduction): 'visual tokens in OCR models mainly encode localized information from their corresponding image regions.' If false, any mask-based pruning would corrupt decoding globally.
domain assumption Tokens inside document-layout bounding boxes are more informative than tokens outside them.
Explicitly stated in the Layout Supervision Method: 'We assume that regions enclosed by document layout bounding boxes are more likely to contain informative content than regions outside.' Table 4 shows this teacher signal drives most of the gain (GRPO alone 85.86 vs 91.43 at 50%), so the method's accuracy depends on PP-DocLayoutV3's box semantics matching OCR-critical content.
domain assumption Blank-region tokens change less across vision-encoder layers than content tokens, making the layer-wise feature trajectory informative.
Motivation for the Conv1D scorer in the Structure of LayoutLite section: 'for redundant regions such as blank backgrounds, the token receives little information from its neighbors and changes only slightly across layers.' No measurement of this trajectory difference is provided.
domain assumption Levenshtein ratio between pruned and unpruned outputs of the frozen model is a sufficient training reward for OCR quality.
The GRPO reward compares against the base model's own output, not ground truth; errors the base model makes are invisible to the reward. External ground-truth evaluation is the only check, so reward hacking that preserves base-model errors is not penalized during training. Reinforcement Learning Method section.
domain assumption Applying the frozen model's Patch Merger to intermediate encoder layers yields usable multi-level visual tokens.
'Following the DeepStack design' (Appendix, Model Architectures Details), but no DeepStack citation is provided; the learned merger is assumed to generalize to earlier-layer feature statistics.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LayoutLite: Token-Level Implicit Layout Analysis for Efficient Document OCR." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CHNOCESL

@misc{pith2026260722200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LayoutLite: Token-Level Implicit Layout Analysis for Efficient Document OCR},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CHNOCESL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22200}
}

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

read the original abstract

End-to-end OCR systems based on vision-language models have achieved strong performance in complex document OCR, but their efficiency is limited by the large number of visual tokens produced from document images. Many of these tokens correspond to blank margins or visually redundant regions, yet directly applying generic visual token compression methods may remove OCR-critical fine-grained details. In this paper, we propose LayoutLite, a lightweight plug-and-play module for efficient document OCR. Instead of relying on explicit document layout detection, LayoutLite performs implicit layout analysis at the token level between the vision encoder and the language decoder. It aggregates multi-layer visual representations from the vision encoder, and predicts an importance score for each visual token with a lightweight scoring network. Low-information tokens are then removed before entering the language decoder while preserving the original spatial positional information of retained tokens. To train LayoutLite without human annotations, we cast token selection as a reinforcement learning problem and optimize it with a group-relative policy optimization objective driven by OCR output consistency, together with an auxiliary layout supervision signal to stabilize training. Experiments on OmniDocBench demonstrate that LayoutLite can substantially reduce visual token length and inference cost with negligible degradation in recognition quality. We further evaluate LayoutLite on two OCR-specialized VLMs, FireRed-OCR and Logics-Parsing-V2. Under up to 50% token compression, LayoutLite preserves almost the same score on both models while reducing prefill latency, FLOPs, and KV cache memory by over 40%, with only a small additional inference overhead. These results show that token-level implicit layout analysis is an effective and practical approach for accelerating VLM-based OCR systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22200 by Bicheng Wan, Xudong Liu, Yulin Jin.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Efficiency comparison under different visual token [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Comparison of the impact of removing different visual tokens on the output of FireRed-OCR. Gray regions indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Overall framework of LayoutLite. Left: training with GRPO and layout supervision. Right: inference with cluster-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Basic output and layout mask generation procedure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Visualization comparison of visual token pruning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Visualization results. Token masks are generated to achieve an average compression rate at 50%. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

[1]

Di- vprune: Diversity-based visual token pruning for large mul- timodalmodels

Alvar,S.R.;Singh,G.;Akbari,M.;andZhang,Y.2025. Di- vprune: Diversity-based visual token pruning for large mul- timodalmodels. InProceedingsoftheComputerVisionand Pattern Recognition Conference, 9392–9401. An, X.; Cai, J.; Chen, X.; Liu, H.; Liu, P.; Wang, P.; Yang, B.;Zhu,X.;Chen,Y.;Gao,Y.;Gao,Y.;Hou,B.;Hu,G.;Li, S.; Qiao, W.; Ren, W.; Wang, Y.; Yang, B.;...

2025
[5]

arXiv:2412.07626

OmniDocBench: Benchmarking Diverse PDF Document Parsing with Comprehensive Annotations. arXiv:2412.07626. Rafailov, R.; Sharma, A.; Mitchell, E.; Manning, C. D.; Er- mon, S.; and Finn, C

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[7]

SuperIntelligenceTeam,X.I.2026.FireRed-OCRTechnical Report

DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models. SuperIntelligenceTeam,X.I.2026.FireRed-OCRTechnical Report. Team, H. V.; Lyu, P.; Wan, X.; Li, G.; Peng, S.; Wang, W.; Wu, L.; Shen, H.; Zhou, Y.; Tang, C.; Yang, Q.; Peng, Q.; Luo,B.;Yang,H.;Zhang,X.;Zhang,J.;Peng,H.;Yang,H.; Xie, S.; Zhou, L.; Pei, G.; Wu, B.; Wu, K.; Ya...

2026
[8]

Wang, B.; Wu, F.; Ouyang, L.; Gu, Z.; Zhang, R.; Xia, R.; Zhang,B.;andHe,C.2025

HunyuanOCR Technical Report. Wang, B.; Wu, F.; Ouyang, L.; Gu, Z.; Zhang, R.; Xia, R.; Zhang,B.;andHe,C.2025. ImageOverText:Transforming Formula Recognition Evaluation with Character Detection Matching. arXiv:2409.03643. Wang, B.; Xu, C.; Zhao, X.; Ouyang, L.; Wu, F.; Zhao, Z.; Xu, R.; Liu, K.; Qu, Y.; Shang, F.; et al

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[9]

Wang, N.; Jin, Z.; Chen, C.; and Lu, H

Mineru: An open-source solution for precise document content extrac- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18839. Wang, N.; Jin, Z.; Chen, C.; and Lu, H

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[10]

arXiv:2604.00886

PixelPrune: Pixel-LevelAdaptiveVisualTokenReductionviaPredictive Coding. arXiv:2604.00886. Wei, H.; Liu, C.; Chen, J.; Wang, J.; Kong, L.; Xu, Y.; Ge, Z.; Zhao, L.; Sun, J.; Peng, Y.; et al

arXiv
[11]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01704

General OCR Theory: Towards OCR-2.0 via a Unified End-to-end Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01704. Wei,H.;Sun,Y.;andLi,Y.2025. DeepSeek-OCR:Contexts Optical Compression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.18234. Wei,H.;Sun,Y.;andLi,Y.2026. DeepSeek-OCR2:Visual Causal Flow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20552. Yang, S.; Chen, Y.; Tian, Z.; Wang, C.; Li, J.; Yu, B.; and Jia, J

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[12]

arXiv:2606.23050

Unlimited OCR Works. arXiv:2606.23050. Zhong, X.; ShafieiBavani, E.; and Yepes, A. J

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[14]

arXiv:2510.16598

VisionSelector: End-to-End Learnable Visual Token Compression for Efficient Multimodal LLMs. arXiv:2510.16598. Appendix Training Details AllexperimentsareconductedonasingleA100-80GBGPU. The hyperparameters corresponding to the best-performing checkpoint used throughout our experiments are listed in Table6.Thehyperparametersa,m,andλcorrespondto the reward ...

arXiv
[15]

Table 7: Main results of FastV on OmniDocBench. Compression rate Method (%) OmniDocBench Score FireRed-OCR 0 92.753 10 89.356 20 86.909 FireRed-OCR 30 82.352 + FastV 40 74.792 50 63.435 60 51.654 PixelPrune Implementation Details PixelPrune provides an official implementation interface for Qwen3-VL. Therefore, we directly integrate PixelPrune through its ...

2048
[2017]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347

Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347. Shao, Z.; Wang, P.; Zhu, Q.; Xu, R.; Song, J.; Zhang, M.; Li, Y.; Wu, Y.; and Guo, D

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[2020]

arXiv:1911.10683

Image-based table recognition: data, model, and evaluation. arXiv:1911.10683. Zhu, J.; Zhu, Y.; Lu, X.; Yan, W.; Li, D.; Liu, K.; Fu, X.; and Zha, Z.-J

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1911
[2024]

arXiv:2403.06764

An Image is Worth 1/2 Tokens After Layer 2: Plug-and-Play Inference Acceleration for Large Vision- Language Models. arXiv:2403.06764. Cui,C.;Gao,T.;Wang,X.;Zhou,C.;Liu,H.;Sun,T.;Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, J.; Lin, M.; Zhang, Y.; Liang, S.; Xiang, Y.;andLiu,Y.2026. RT-DocLayout:Real-TimeEnd-to-End Document Layout Analysis with Reading Order in the Wild. ar...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[2025]

arXiv:2510.14528

PaddleOCR-VL: Boosting Multilingual Document Parsing via a 0.9B Ultra-Compact Vision-Language Model. arXiv:2510.14528. Dong, D.; Zheng, M.; Xu, D.; Luo, C.; Zhuang, B.; Li, Y.; He, R.; Wang, H.; Zhang, W.; Wang, W.; Wang, Y.; Xiong, X.;Zheng,A.;Zuo,X.;Ou,Z.;Gu,J.;Guo,Q.;Wu,J.;Yin, D.;andShen,D.2026. Qianfan-OCR:AUnifiedEnd-to-End Model for Document Intell...

arXiv 2026
[2026]

arXiv:2603.09677

Logics-Parsing-Omni Technical Report. arXiv:2603.09677. Chen, L.; Zhao, H.; Liu, T.; Bai, S.; Lin, J.; Zhou, C.; and Chang, B

Pith/arXiv arXiv

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.

[1] [1]

Di- vprune: Diversity-based visual token pruning for large mul- timodalmodels

Alvar,S.R.;Singh,G.;Akbari,M.;andZhang,Y.2025. Di- vprune: Diversity-based visual token pruning for large mul- timodalmodels. InProceedingsoftheComputerVisionand Pattern Recognition Conference, 9392–9401. An, X.; Cai, J.; Chen, X.; Liu, H.; Liu, P.; Wang, P.; Yang, B.;Zhu,X.;Chen,Y.;Gao,Y.;Gao,Y.;Hou,B.;Hu,G.;Li, S.; Qiao, W.; Ren, W.; Wang, Y.; Yang, B.;...

2025

[2] [5]

arXiv:2412.07626

OmniDocBench: Benchmarking Diverse PDF Document Parsing with Comprehensive Annotations. arXiv:2412.07626. Rafailov, R.; Sharma, A.; Mitchell, E.; Manning, C. D.; Er- mon, S.; and Finn, C

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[3] [7]

SuperIntelligenceTeam,X.I.2026.FireRed-OCRTechnical Report

DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models. SuperIntelligenceTeam,X.I.2026.FireRed-OCRTechnical Report. Team, H. V.; Lyu, P.; Wan, X.; Li, G.; Peng, S.; Wang, W.; Wu, L.; Shen, H.; Zhou, Y.; Tang, C.; Yang, Q.; Peng, Q.; Luo,B.;Yang,H.;Zhang,X.;Zhang,J.;Peng,H.;Yang,H.; Xie, S.; Zhou, L.; Pei, G.; Wu, B.; Wu, K.; Ya...

2026

[4] [8]

Wang, B.; Wu, F.; Ouyang, L.; Gu, Z.; Zhang, R.; Xia, R.; Zhang,B.;andHe,C.2025

HunyuanOCR Technical Report. Wang, B.; Wu, F.; Ouyang, L.; Gu, Z.; Zhang, R.; Xia, R.; Zhang,B.;andHe,C.2025. ImageOverText:Transforming Formula Recognition Evaluation with Character Detection Matching. arXiv:2409.03643. Wang, B.; Xu, C.; Zhao, X.; Ouyang, L.; Wu, F.; Zhao, Z.; Xu, R.; Liu, K.; Qu, Y.; Shang, F.; et al

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[5] [9]

Wang, N.; Jin, Z.; Chen, C.; and Lu, H

Mineru: An open-source solution for precise document content extrac- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18839. Wang, N.; Jin, Z.; Chen, C.; and Lu, H

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[6] [10]

arXiv:2604.00886

PixelPrune: Pixel-LevelAdaptiveVisualTokenReductionviaPredictive Coding. arXiv:2604.00886. Wei, H.; Liu, C.; Chen, J.; Wang, J.; Kong, L.; Xu, Y.; Ge, Z.; Zhao, L.; Sun, J.; Peng, Y.; et al

arXiv

[7] [11]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01704

General OCR Theory: Towards OCR-2.0 via a Unified End-to-end Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01704. Wei,H.;Sun,Y.;andLi,Y.2025. DeepSeek-OCR:Contexts Optical Compression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.18234. Wei,H.;Sun,Y.;andLi,Y.2026. DeepSeek-OCR2:Visual Causal Flow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20552. Yang, S.; Chen, Y.; Tian, Z.; Wang, C.; Li, J.; Yu, B.; and Jia, J

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[8] [12]

arXiv:2606.23050

Unlimited OCR Works. arXiv:2606.23050. Zhong, X.; ShafieiBavani, E.; and Yepes, A. J

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[9] [14]

arXiv:2510.16598

VisionSelector: End-to-End Learnable Visual Token Compression for Efficient Multimodal LLMs. arXiv:2510.16598. Appendix Training Details AllexperimentsareconductedonasingleA100-80GBGPU. The hyperparameters corresponding to the best-performing checkpoint used throughout our experiments are listed in Table6.Thehyperparametersa,m,andλcorrespondto the reward ...

arXiv

[10] [15]

Table 7: Main results of FastV on OmniDocBench. Compression rate Method (%) OmniDocBench Score FireRed-OCR 0 92.753 10 89.356 20 86.909 FireRed-OCR 30 82.352 + FastV 40 74.792 50 63.435 60 51.654 PixelPrune Implementation Details PixelPrune provides an official implementation interface for Qwen3-VL. Therefore, we directly integrate PixelPrune through its ...

2048

[11] [2017]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347

Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347. Shao, Z.; Wang, P.; Zhu, Q.; Xu, R.; Song, J.; Zhang, M.; Li, Y.; Wu, Y.; and Guo, D

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[12] [2020]

arXiv:1911.10683

Image-based table recognition: data, model, and evaluation. arXiv:1911.10683. Zhu, J.; Zhu, Y.; Lu, X.; Yan, W.; Li, D.; Liu, K.; Fu, X.; and Zha, Z.-J

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1911

[13] [2024]

arXiv:2403.06764

An Image is Worth 1/2 Tokens After Layer 2: Plug-and-Play Inference Acceleration for Large Vision- Language Models. arXiv:2403.06764. Cui,C.;Gao,T.;Wang,X.;Zhou,C.;Liu,H.;Sun,T.;Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, J.; Lin, M.; Zhang, Y.; Liang, S.; Xiang, Y.;andLiu,Y.2026. RT-DocLayout:Real-TimeEnd-to-End Document Layout Analysis with Reading Order in the Wild. ar...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[14] [2025]

arXiv:2510.14528

PaddleOCR-VL: Boosting Multilingual Document Parsing via a 0.9B Ultra-Compact Vision-Language Model. arXiv:2510.14528. Dong, D.; Zheng, M.; Xu, D.; Luo, C.; Zhuang, B.; Li, Y.; He, R.; Wang, H.; Zhang, W.; Wang, W.; Wang, Y.; Xiong, X.;Zheng,A.;Zuo,X.;Ou,Z.;Gu,J.;Guo,Q.;Wu,J.;Yin, D.;andShen,D.2026. Qianfan-OCR:AUnifiedEnd-to-End Model for Document Intell...

arXiv 2026

[15] [2026]

arXiv:2603.09677

Logics-Parsing-Omni Technical Report. arXiv:2603.09677. Chen, L.; Zhao, H.; Liu, T.; Bai, S.; Lin, J.; Zhou, C.; and Chang, B

Pith/arXiv arXiv

LayoutLite: Token-Level Implicit Layout Analysis for Efficient Document OCR

Core claim §

What carries the argument

Load-bearing premise §

What would settle it §

If this is right

discussion (0)

Core claim

Load-bearing premise

What would settle it