LV-ROVER-MLT: Low-Resource Maltese OCR by Synthetic Fine-Tuning and Multi-Stream Arbitration

LV-ROVER-MLT changes the topology of the ROVER decision structure while retaining its core mechanism.

It keeps the two defining ROVER operations: aligning multiple recognizer outputs word-by-word, and arbitrating among competing hypotheses at corresponding positions.

Four adaptations distinguish it from canonical ROVER (Fiscus, 1997) and LV-ROVER (Stuner et al., 2020).

One anchor stream fixes the output structure and the other streams propose only substitutions at anchor-aligned positions; they cannot insert or delete to restructure the anchor, unlike ROVER’s symmetric confusion network. The lexicon is a membership eligibility gate not a frequency table or a closed vocabulary, so an out-of-vocabulary anchor word survives unless a candidate stream offers an eligible replacement.

A diacritic-restoration gate extends LV-ROVER’s lexicon verification to the Maltese setting, promoting a diacritic-richer in-lexicon candidate even over an already-valid anchor. Arbitration is plurality with no quorum: the most-voted eligible proposal wins, a single eligible distinct hypothesis can carry a position, and ties break by stream order, not majority.

Diversity comes from five structurally distinct recognizer configurations (language chain, training data, image scale), not from many stochastically-initialised instances of one architecture retrained on a single labelled dataset, as in LV-ROVER’s RIMES setup.

Each adaptation serves a specific purpose: deterministic inference, anchor preservation, open-vocabulary output, and resource efficiency under the competition’s constraints.

The system has a training side and an inference side.

The training side renders synthetic line crops from a text source and fine-tunes the Tesseract LSTM on them.

The inference side runs five parallel Tesseract streams over the image and arbitrates their outputs into a single paragraph string, shown in Figure 1.

The five-stream design aims for diversity without retraining: a stream fails on different characters than its siblings only if its inputs differ. Diversity here comes from language chain (Maltese alone, Maltese plus Italian, Maltese plus Italian and French), training data (fine-tuned versus stock recogniser), and image scale (native versus 2x-upscaled crop). Each axis shifts which characters the recogniser confuses, so combining streams can recover what any single stream loses; Section 4.2 measures whether this actually happens.

Figure 1 reads top to bottom. Synthetic Maltese text yields three training artefacts: the fine-tuned Tesseract model, confusion table, and lexicon.

At inference, one paragraph image runs through five deterministic Tesseract configurations, each joined and normalised independently. mlt+ita is the default anchor, with a longest-stream fallback; the confusion corrector repairs eligible anchor words. Remaining distinct non-anchor hypotheses align to anchor positions, where lexicon and diacritic gates admit replacement proposals. Plurality arbitration selects an eligible proposal without restructuring the anchor; final punctuation and label-convention normalisation runs last.

Ghadha is the anchor. Two hypotheses produce Għadha, lexicon-valid and differing only by diacritic restoration. A third matches the anchor and casts no vote. Għada is rejected for shortening the alphabetic form. The eligible plurality selects Għadha. This example is illustrative, not a quoted development-set case.

With no labelled real Maltese PDF data at usable scale, the synthesis pipeline is this project’s main dependency.

The recogniser is Tesseract 5 (Smith, 2007; Smith et al., 2009), fine-tuned on 49,369 synthetic line crops. With the rule-based joiner, it reaches CER 0.01605 on the development set by itself. This is our fine-tuned anchor, distinct from the organizers’ fine-tuned Tesseract baseline (CER 0.0234); we report every later candidate relative to both.

Canary diacritics and the two label-bearing dashes round-trip through a 117-character training inventory. Structural clitic-article hyphens (il-, is-, id-, fis-, and others) are never removed by the joiner’s line-break repair; the image-only en-dash (U+2013) is normalised to an em-dash (U+2014). Tesseract is deterministic; inference runs on CPU.

Fine-tuning starts from Tesseract’s stock Maltese model, warm-started onto a merged character set (stock plus the 117-character training inventory). Training runs 2,000 iterations at seed 42 over the 49,369 lines across five shards, mixed 70/30 augmented-to-clean, checkpointed every 100 iterations. Checkpoint selection is lowest dev-set CER on the full 422-paragraph development set, reusing the same set the headline CER is reported against, so the pick is not independent of that number. The selected checkpoint is iteration 1400 (dev CER 0.016053); CER is flat within 0.01605–0.01632 from iteration 400 onward.

We did not record a held-out validation split distinct from the dev set for this step.

After arbitration, a three-pass chain converts Tesseract’s output to the gold label convention: a leading clause-marker rule (digit, dash, and space around an em-dash at paragraph start), an apostrophe-curling rule, and a positional double-quote rule that curls opening and closing double quotes in a single pass. The diacritic-restoration step is not part of this chain; it runs inside arbitration (Section 3.4), before these passes. These rules are development decisions frozen into the shipped code, not runtime configuration.

Scored under the same label convention as the organizers’ fine-tuned Tesseract baseline (CER 0.0234), the five-stream pipeline before the final v16–v20 label-convention rules, the pre-convention pipeline CER, reaches 0.01317 on the frozen submission artifact, a 44 percent reduction. This stage already includes the rule-based joiner, en-dash normalisation, and the confusion corrector; it is output before the final quote- and dash-convention rules, not recognition in isolation. The frozen 0.01317 predates the diacritic-restoration gate, introduced later (v19, Table 3); the fresh replay (0.01220) does include the gate, one source of the frozen-versus-replay gap.

Table 2 separates two artifacts that must not be combined. The frozen row is the submitted pipeline; the replay row is a fresh reconstruction of the same five streams, used only to attach a confidence interval, since the frozen artifact was not re-run under the bootstrap harness. The frozen anchor-to-pipeline arithmetic (0.01605 to 0.01317) is a point estimate, 0.00288, with no interval. The replay lands at a nearby but distinct 0.01220, and its anchor-to-ensemble delta, 0.00386, is what the checks below characterise; that interval belongs to the replay number only.

This replay delta is positive under paired resampling (95% CI excluding zero, permutation $p<0.0001$; the add-one correction behind that bound is discussed in Section 4.4).

The full pipeline, including the label-convention chain (Section 3.5), reaches CER 0.00700 on the frozen submission artifact, a 70 percent reduction from the same baseline. The frozen post-processing delta is 0.00617 (0.01317 to 0.00700); the same fresh replay used above measures a delta of approximately 0.00503 for the equivalent stages. Both are point estimates from their respective artifacts; only the combined post-processing delta as a block is bootstrap- and permutation-confirmed (Section 4.4), and that confirmation was run against the replay reconstruction, not the frozen numbers.

Table 3 traces the frozen chain in the order these decisions were made during development, not runtime order: the diacritic-restoration gate runs inside arbitration at inference time (Section 3.4) and its row appears late only because that behavior was introduced late in development. In this ordered sequence, synthetic fine-tuning provides the largest single gain, about 72 percent of the 0.0234-to-0.01317 reduction, with arbitration contributing the remaining 28 percent. This split is path-dependent and descriptive rather than causal: fine-tuning alone was not isolated under otherwise identical conditions.

The shipped pipeline is built incrementally from the fine-tuned anchor at CER 0.01605: a 3-stream arbitration step reaches 0.01441, expansion to five streams reaches 0.01317, and the label-convention chain brings the full pipeline to 0.00700. The anchor-to-five-stream delta as a whole is the only quantity that cleared the full audit gate (Section 4.4); the 3-to-5-stream expansion has only a point estimate, not its own confidence interval.

Arbitration helps only if the streams fail on different words. The mean pairwise word-disagreement rate is 4.0 percent, and a per-paragraph oracle stream selector (always picking whichever stream is closest to gold) reaches CER 0.01118, better than the best fixed stream (mlt+ita+fra, 0.01432). This oracle bounds stream selection specifically, not every word-level fusion method, since a word-level combiner can in principle beat picking one stream per paragraph. The fresh-replay five-stream result (0.01220) lands 0.00102 from that oracle, indicating that the configurations fail on complementary words and that arbitration recovers most of what a per-paragraph selector could.

CER is computed with the jiwer library (Vaessen, 2025) on NFC-normalised reference and hypothesis text, aggregated as a sum of edit distances over a sum of reference lengths across paragraphs $p$:

This matches jiwer’s default aggregation and the organizers’ scoring script.

We stratify the development set across five axes: length quartile; language tag (Maltese, English, or other, from a wordlist heuristic); presence of the clitic-article prefix family; presence of a line-break hyphen; and presence of an em-dash. Buckets with fewer than 20 paragraphs are flagged as small and excluded from the regression gate, though still reported.

For ensemble-level decisions we use four checks, applied to the anchor-to-five-stream delta as a whole rather than the marginal three-to-five-stream expansion step in isolation.

First, a paired percentile bootstrap over per-paragraph edit-distance pairs (Efron and Tibshirani, 1993; Koehn, 2004), 1,000 resamples, sorting resampled deltas and reading off the 2.5th/97.5th-percentile endpoints without a bias-correction or acceleration step (a plain percentile interval, not BCa); a positive interval excluding zero means the CER delta is positive under paired resampling.

Second, a two-sided permutation test at 10,000 label-swap draws, run identically for the ensemble delta, the combined post-processing delta, and the two cross-language margins, using an add-one (Laplace) correction, $p=(n_{\geq}+1)/(N+1)$, so a draw with no permuted resample reaching the observed magnitude reports as a finite-resolution bound (e.g. $p<0.0001$ at 10,000 permutations) rather than the misleading $p=0$.

Third, five-fold evaluation on held-out synthetic data provides a stability check under the renderer distribution; it does not estimate uncertainty on real benchmark data.

Fourth, a per-character paired bootstrap over the canary set, with BH-FDR correction at $\alpha=0.05$ across the character family (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995), so promoting a stage never silently trades a diacritic regression for a CER gain.

A variant is significant only when the global confidence interval excludes zero improvement and no non-small bucket regresses by more than 0.005 absolute. All resampling is seeded (seed 42). This paper reports the bootstrap and permutation outcomes; the cross-validation noise band and the per-character FDR checks acted as development-time gates and are not individually reported here.

The smaller deterministic post-processing rules get a lighter check: a single CER delta from removing the rule, cross-checked against held-out synthetic data (Section 4.5). Chaining five bootstrap procedures over the same sequential decisions would itself need a multiple-comparisons correction we have not run (Section 6). Only the anchor-to-five-stream delta passed the full setup.

Every rule in the normalisation chain was tuned with the development set in view, so each is a candidate case of overfitting. We test each rule by removing it and checking whether development-set CER drops while held-out synthetic CER rises, which would indicate the rule fits development-set idiosyncrasy rather than a real pattern. This does not establish that a rule’s gain is itself statistically significant, since the held-out set is generated by the same synthetic pipeline as training data and cannot stand in for an independent real-world sample (Section 6). Table 4 reports the point-estimate CER change from each rule, positive meaning the rule helps, on the development set and on two held-out synthetic sets, see Section 4.4.

The synthetic labels use ASCII quotes rather than the benchmark gold’s curly-quote convention, so the apostrophe and closing-quote rules read as errors against synthetic gold, a label-convention artefact rather than a regression; we do not read those two columns as evidence either way. Re-scoring both under the curly convention collapses their measured deltas to zero and drops full-pipeline CER on the larger held-out set from 0.05695 to 0.04700. The remaining three rules show a non-negative delta across all three sets; the closing-quote rule’s development-set delta reads 0.00041 cumulatively (Table 3) but is inert (0.00000) in this fresh leave-one-out re-run, the more robust per-rule measure, and cannot be assessed against the synthetic labels because their quote convention differs; it is kept to hold the curly convention on real gold.

We evaluated portability of the same fine-tuning-plus-arbitration protocol to two other languages, $n=200$ paragraphs per language: Hungarian (HuCCPDF (Li et al., 2025)) and Luxembourgish (19th-century newspaper print). Neither shares Maltese’s canary diacritics or clitic-hyphen morphology; Hungarian needed no morphological joiner, and the Luxembourgish domain differs from either synthetic-Maltese or synthetic-Hungarian training data.

Table 5 gives the headline numbers under the same paired-bootstrap and permutation audit used for the Maltese results. Hungarian is inconclusive, not a clean null result: the stock-to-full-pipeline margin is not significant (95% CI [$-$0.00371, 0.00543], $p=0.656$). Luxembourgish improves against our own stock-Tesseract configuration (95% CI [0.07623, 0.09642], $p<0.0001$) but does not beat a published comparator on the same corpus (12.12% CER over a 976-paragraph set) (Agbeti-Messan et al., 2026): ours uses a smaller, differently sampled $n=200$ set, and our self-measured stock baseline (25.52%) is roughly double that comparator’s reported figure, so part of the margin may reflect our weaker baseline rather than a stronger method.

Taken together, the two cases show that portability depends on calibration and on the quality of the baseline being improved upon, rather than on the target language alone.

We are aware of no public, reusable paragraph-scale Maltese OCR training corpus beyond NOMOCRAT’s 57 pages (Tanti et al., 2026) and the competition’s own resources. We built and released one: 36,803 paragraph-level (image, text) pairs, 94 from EUR-Lex legal documents and 36,709 from Maltese Wikipedia²²2https://huggingface.co/datasets/radmada/maltese-ocr-corpus, with per-sample source and licence provenance. It was used only for post-competition experiments and did not contribute to the competition result. Pages are rendered at 150 DPI; paragraph regions come from PyMuPDF’s³³3https://pymupdf.readthedocs.io/ text-block segmentation of the PDF’s own layout, not its Unicode text layer, whose ToUnicode maps are unreliable for Maltese diacritics in these born-digital documents. Each crop’s label is instead aligned against an alternate representation of the same content, EUR-Lex’s Formex XML or Wikipedia’s plaintext-extract API, and kept only when word-level substring coverage against that source reaches 0.7 (per-pair score shipped in the metadata); the two sources are alternate renderings of the same document, not independent authorities on its correctness.

The register is skewed: 99.7 percent of pairs are encyclopedic Wikipedia prose, so legal and administrative Maltese is underrepresented. And every page is a digital-born render with no scanner noise: real-text and real-layout, but not scanned-document data. This corpus did not establish the competition result in Section 4; it is a post-submission contribution released alongside it to further stress test it.

Claude Code assisted with CI/CD, code review, literature and citation organization, and proofreading. The author directed the research and accepts full responsibility for the results.