Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study conducts a detailed performance gap analysis between handwritten text recognition (HTR) systems for Arabic and Latin scripts using a unified CRNN model across nine diverse datasets. The findings reveal that while the performance gap between the two scripts diminishes with increased training data, a consistent difference of 5-7 character error rate (CER) points persists even at full scale, highlighting the significant impact of annotation quality and visual variability in Arabic scripts. The research also uncovers that a substantial portion of substitution errors in Arabic is attributed to confusion among visually similar characters, underscoring the challenges in HTR for Arabic scripts.
Despite increased training data, Arabic-script HTR systems still lag behind Latin-script systems by 5-7 CER points, revealing deep-rooted challenges in recognition accuracy.
Recent studies have shown that handwritten text recognition (HTR) systems perform worse on Arabic-script datasets than on Latin-script data. However, the reasons for this gap are still not well understood due to the lack of controlled comparisons. In this work, we present a comprehensive study of Arabic and Latin scripts HTR using a unified CRNN model for line-level HTR across nine datasets (including KHATT (Arabic), Muharaf (Arabic), NUST-UHWR (Urdu), PHTD (Persian), IAM (English), READ-2016 (German), and others) and di ferent training sizes (K in {100, 500, 1000, 2000, ..., Kfull}). Our results show the performance gap remains: it is large in low-resource settings, decreases with more data, but remains even at full scale, with a consistent difference of 5-7 CER points. We show that annotation quality matters, as many datasets contain labeling errors. Cleaning reduces error rates and narrows the gap, but does not eliminate it. In addition, we find that a fixed number of training samples provides less effective coverage in Arabic due to higher visual variability, requiring more data to learn similar representations. We compare recognition across datasets in terms of the number of text lines and the number of characters, showing an equivalence trade-off. We compare character frequency distributions across scripts and show that Arabic is significantly more heavy-tailed than Latin. Our error analysis reveals that around 30 percent of substitution errors in Arabic datasets (e.g., KHATT) are caused by confusion between visually similar characters, compared to about 15 percent in Latin-script datasets such as IAM.
