11–20 of 47 posts
The graph doesn't exactly make it clear but it describes a pipeline that goes beyond the LLM, so the CNN could be a separate model there.
This is cool, Id love to be able to fine tune on this architecture. Is this something on the roadmap ever?
However, if we see enough people who has something super niche that our model can't handle, we might start considering a fine tuning service
> These are deep neural network architectures that are task-specific for things like OCR, translation, or GUI detection. The way they consume and see data is trained to be task specific, which makes them up to 100x more accurate at their specific task. They also produce useful metadata like bounding boxes and confidence scores, letting developers build predictable workflows they can rely on. Does code extraction and…
Code extraction maybe, not something we have tested or built for but you could give it a try. Code manipulation probably not since it's a lot smaller of a model compared to a Claude Opus which is SOTA for code generation/manipulation. Generally code generation is a non-deterministic task by nature and general LLMs tend to be better at them.
What I want are precise and tight bounding boxes. Why is this so difficult?
I presume that some otherwise-great OCR models (like Chandra) have terrible bounding boxes because generating good bounding boxes just wasn't a training priority. A lot of people are using OCR models to bulk-process documents without a lot of care for how the layout is preserved. It matters a lot if (e.g.) you want to be able to update and re-print old documents, but it doesn't matter if you are just transcribing whole documents for indexing/chunking/translation.
[1] https://huggingface.co/PaddlePaddle/PP-DocLayoutV3
[2] https://r2public.jigsawstack.com/interfaze/examples/dense_te...
I just tried the OCR capabilities with a photo of a DIN A4 page which was written with a typewriter. The image isn't the easiest to interpret. The text perspective is distorted because the page is part of a book and the page margin toward the spine of the book is very small. There are also many inline corrections due to typing errors while the page was written (backspace couldn't erase characters back then, and arrow keys couldn't be used to add text in between existing words). Over the past months I've tried to use several LLMs on this very same image already (1 out of 200 pages that seek digitization). The result is by far the most accurate so far. Only some very minor errors (which are also non-trivial for human translators) were made.
This page induced costs of about 25 cent. I assume I could tweak the input image a little more to consume less input tokens. OCR-ing all 200 pages would otherwise cost a juicy 50$ - although there is a generous 20$ of free credits.
Induced cost: 108.8k Input tokens => 16,32 cent 24.5k Output tokens => 8,58 cent
// Edit: I just re-tried the same task utilizing a capability of the API to only run a specific part of the model (e.g. _only_ OCR). This cuts cost by 3x (to ~8c/page) but significantly worsens the result. The result is missing entire lines of the original document. There are also many error in the text that was recognized.
This is very cool, though I don't understand exactly what they've done here. Is it some kind of LLM with convolutional layers added? The graph doesn't exactly make it clear but it describes a pipeline that goes beyond the LLM, so the CNN could be a separate model there.
