<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Implicit Language Model in LSTM for OCR · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1805.09441/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1805.09441/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Implicit Language Model in LSTM for OCR — mentioned by dfeng</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42961315</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1805.09441:42961315</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2025 11:23:01 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Traditional OCRs are trained for a single task: recognize characters. They do this through visual features (and sometimes there&amp;#x27;s an implicit (or even explicit) &amp;quot;language&amp;quot; model: see https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.09441). As such, the extent of their &amp;quot;hallucination&amp;quot;, or errors, is when there&amp;#x27;s ambiguity in characters, e.g. 0 vs O (that&amp;#x27;s where the implicit language model comes in). Because they&amp;#x27;re trained with a singular purpose, you would expect their confidence scores (i.e. logprobs) to be well calibrated. Also, depending on the OCR model, you usually do a text detection (get bounding boxes)…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1805.09441/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CV</category></item></channel></rss>
