Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Cross-Temporal Sinhala OCR: Page-Level Adaptation and Diachronic Analysis

Avisha Dilhara, Nevidu Jayatilleke · Jun 28, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Sinhala is a morphologically rich abugida spoken by roughly 16 million people in Sri Lanka, and to date, there are no publicly available real-world datasets for page-level Sinhala OCR. All previous studies for assessing Sinhala OCR models have used artificially generated data. To bridge the gap, we introduce sinhala-ocr-lk-acts-1010, an annotated dataset of 1,010 page-level images and their transcriptions collected from Sri Lankan Legislative Acts published between 1981-1989 and 2000-2019, split into 707 training examples, 101 validation examples, and 202 testing examples. Three models based on deep learning-based visual language processing, namely DeepSeek-OCR V1, DeepSeek-OCR V2, and LightOnOCR-2-1B, are fine-tuned using QLoRA in 8 experiments conducted on consumer and cloud GPUs. LightOnOCR-2-1B is the top performer, achieving a CER of 1.05% across all test examples, outperforming state-of-the-art open-source OCR models such as Surya-OCR (8.84%) and Tesseract v5 (10.69%), as well as commercially available OCR models such as Google Document AI (2.06%). Our results suggest that LightOnOCR-2-1B outperforms other baselines on real-world OCR tasks and maintains consistent performance across all print periods, even when documents are severely degraded.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Sinhala is a morphologically rich abugida spoken by roughly 16 million people in Sri Lanka, and to date, there are no publicly available real-world datasets for page-level Sinhala OCR."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Sinhala is a morphologically rich abugida spoken by roughly 16 million people in Sri Lanka, and to date, there are no publicly available real-world datasets for page-level Sinhala OCR."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Sinhala is a morphologically rich abugida spoken by roughly 16 million people in Sri Lanka, and to date, there are no publicly available real-world datasets for page-level Sinhala OCR."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Sinhala is a morphologically rich abugida spoken by roughly 16 million people in Sri Lanka, and to date, there are no publicly available real-world datasets for page-level Sinhala OCR."

Reported Metrics

partial

Cer

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"LightOnOCR-2-1B is the top performer, achieving a CER of 1.05% across all test examples, outperforming state-of-the-art open-source OCR models such as Surya-OCR (8.84%) and Tesseract v5 (10.69%), as well as commercially available OCR models such as Google Document AI (2.06%)."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

cer

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Sinhala is a morphologically rich abugida spoken by roughly 16 million people in Sri Lanka, and to date, there are no publicly available real-world datasets for page-level Sinhala OCR.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Sinhala is a morphologically rich abugida spoken by roughly 16 million people in Sri Lanka, and to date, there are no publicly available real-world datasets for page-level Sinhala OCR.
  • All previous studies for assessing Sinhala OCR models have used artificially generated data.
  • To bridge the gap, we introduce sinhala-ocr-lk-acts-1010, an annotated dataset of 1,010 page-level images and their transcriptions collected from Sri Lankan Legislative Acts published between 1981-1989 and 2000-2019, split into 707 training examples, 101 validation examples, and 202 testing examples.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • To bridge the gap, we introduce sinhala-ocr-lk-acts-1010, an annotated dataset of 1,010 page-level images and their transcriptions collected from Sri Lankan Legislative Acts published between 1981-1989 and 2000-2019, split into 707 training…
  • LightOnOCR-2-1B is the top performer, achieving a CER of 1.05% across all test examples, outperforming state-of-the-art open-source OCR models such as Surya-OCR (8.84%) and Tesseract v5 (10.69%), as well as commercially available OCR models…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: cer

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.