Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Rewrite, Then Veto: Rewriter-Agnostic Edit Gating for LLM-Based Post-OCR Correction

Summary

The paper proposes EditVeto, a veto gate placed after a full-context LLM rewrite: the rewrite is character-aligned to the OCR input, differences are split into blocks, and a 0.6B-parameter gate keeps or reverts each block. On the eight HIPE-OCRepair-2026 test sets, the gate improves all five rewriters tested, including two unseen in training.

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Jorge Ram\'on Fonseca Cacho
Rewrite, Then Veto: Rewriter-Agnostic Edit Gating for LLM-Based Post-OCR Correction
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 3 Nov 2026]

Title:Rewrite, Then Veto: Rewriter-Agnostic Edit Gating for LLM-Based Post-OCR Correction

View a PDF of the paper titled Rewrite, Then Veto: Rewriter-Agnostic Edit Gating for LLM-Based Post-OCR Correction, by Jorge Ram\'on Fonseca Cacho

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:LLMs can repair noisy OCR transcripts of historical documents, but they also change text that was already correct. We propose EditVeto, a veto gate placed after a full-context LLM rewrite. The rewrite is character-aligned to the OCR input, its differences are split into blocks, and a 0.6B-parameter gate keeps or reverts each block. An oracle analysis motivates the design: given the true error locations, per-span generation is worse than no correction, whereas vetoing a full rewrite's edits helps. Trained on rewrites by two Qwen3 models and evaluated, frozen, on the eight HIPE-OCRepair-2026 test sets, the gate improves all five rewriters tested, two of them unseen in training: weighted cMER falls by 0.0026-0.0044 and the preference score rises by 0.15-0.25 (paired bootstrap, p ~ 0.0002 each). On published competition outputs it lowers cMER for three of four teams but raises it for the winning run (0.0050 to 0.0065). In a second, disclosed test look, a retrained gate still improves LoRA-tuned rewriters (cMER -0.0011 to -0.0021), and an ensemble of their gated edits reaches a cMER of 0.0069 and a preference score of 0.928, mostly through fine-tuning and pooling rather than gating. Built only on public models and data, it is behind the winner (0.0050) and tied with the second-ranked run (0.0071), both from the only team using domain pre-training, and ahead of all other published runs. A third, secondary look shows the unchanged gate improving zero-shot Qwen3.8-27B (cMER 0.0114 to 0.0108) but only the preference score of its LoRA-tuned version.

Comments: 26 pages, 3 figures, 12 tables. Code: this https URL models: this https URL

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)

Cite as: arXiv:2611.05539 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2611.05539v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.05539

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Jorge Fonseca Cacho [view email] [v1] Tue, 3 Nov 2026 19:31:36 UTC (277 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Rewrite, Then Veto: Rewriter-Agnostic Edit Gating for LLM-Based Post-OCR Correction, by Jorge Ram\'on Fonseca Cacho

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-11

Change to browse by:

cs cs.CV

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • EditVeto keeps or reverts each edit block after a full rewrite to limit changes to already-correct text.
  • Weighted cMER falls by 0.0026–0.0044 and preference score rises by 0.15–0.25 across eight test sets.
  • The gate helps two unseen rewriters but raises cMER for the winning competition run from 0.0050 to 0.0065.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.