Aditya Pratap Singh

Aditya Pratap Singh

OCR systems, ranging from classical engines to specialised OCR vision-language models (OCR-VLMs) and frontier multimodal LLMs, report strong results on English and Chinese document benchmarks, yet their behaviour on Indic scripts is largely uncharacterised. We benchmark ten systems on Devanagari (Hindi): classical EasyOCR; open VLMs (Qwen2.5-VL-3B, Qwen3-VL-8B, olmOCR-7B); specialised OCR-VLMs (DeepSeek-OCR, Unlimited-OCR); and frontier closed models (Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, Mistral OCR), across four synthetic degradation conditions and 300 real printed scans. We report four findings. First, on clean rendered text all ten cluster within chrF++ 91 to 98, so synthetic text does not separate them. Second, under degradation the specialised OCR-VLMs are the most fragile: DeepSeek-OCR suffers rare but catastrophic repetition failures (outputs up to 71 the reference length) that wreck its corpus mean even though its median is the best of any system, which is why we report median and catastrophic-rate instead of the mean. Third, on real scans nine of the ten systems collapse (EasyOCR falls from chrF++ 93.6 to 58.3) and the field spreads across a 76-point range, so synthetic renders badly overstate Devanagari quality. Fourth, strong English OCR does not predict Indic OCR: GPT-5.5 drops to chrF++ 58.5 (tying classical EasyOCR) and olmOCR-7B, the model behind olmOCR-Bench, falls to 40.5, while the open Qwen3-VL-8B (75.2, runnable on a single 24 GB GPU) beats GPT-5.5 and approaches Mistral; Gemini and Claude lead at 86.3 and 82.2. An error taxonomy separates surface errors (numerals, punctuation) from structural ones (conjuncts, matras, nukta), and a byte-level (ByT5) post-corrector improves a cheap engine on its own error distribution (chrF++ +1.2 to +1.5) but does not transfer across engines. We release the benchmark, code, and models.

Aditya Pratap Singh

IndicTrans2 is the strongest open English to Indic translation system, but like most systems it is trained on general text and tends to sound stiff on casual, conversational input. We adapt IndicTrans2-1B to conversational register across all 21 Indic languages using only public data (OpenSubtitles, BPCC-H-Daily, Tatoeba). Plain fine-tuning improves conversational chrF but forgets the general domain (it drops 3.9 chrF on FLORES for Hindi). Mixing general data back into training (experience replay) and then averaging the fine-tuned weights with the base (model souping) removes that trade-off: the resulting model beats IndicTrans2-1B on conversational chrF in every one of the 21 languages (mean +6.2) while matching it on FLORES (mean change -0.17, all within 0.7 chrF). Paired bootstrap tests confirm the conversational gains are significant (p <= 0.004) and that FLORES is not significantly degraded. We are deliberate about scope: these are chrF gains, and a blind human plus multi-model LLM check does not confirm them as a perceived quality improvement, so we treat the conversational gain as largely a register match to the references rather than proof of better translation. The techniques are not new; the contribution is the honest, end-to-end study in the Indic conversational setting.

Charith Chandra Sai Balne, Rithwik Maramraju, Siddharth Pratap Singh et al.

Dense embedding retrieval compresses all relevance information into a single inner product, imposing a fundamental geometric limit -- the Voronoi Bottleneck -- on the number of query-document relevance patterns expressible at fixed embedding dimension (d). We make three contributions. (1) Unified capacity theory. We prove that Voronoi complexity and sign-rank are equivalent for top-1 retrieval, yielding tight dimension bounds and a computable diagnostic, the Capacity Utilization Score (CUS), that predicts per-query retrieval failure with AUC (> 0.8) without relevance labels. (2) Diagnosis. CUS identifies two capacity regimes -- moderate ((δ\gtrsim 1)), where density-aware training yields measurable gains, and vacuous ((δ\ll 1)), where it does not -- giving practitioners an a priori check before investing in retraining. (3) DART training. We introduce AT-DW-InfoNCE, an Adaptive-Temperature Density-Weighted contrastive objective with formally derived optimal weighting (α^* = 2.0). On a 100K-query synthetic product-search corpus with controlled relevance structure, DART improves +1.9 Recall@100 over a same-data InfoNCE baseline ((84.9 \pm 0.0) vs. (83.0 \pm 0.3); 8 seeds, (p < 0.001)), outperforming focal loss and temperature-schedule alternatives. DART requires zero inference-time overhead -- it is a drop-in training objective that improves any dual-encoder system.