SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2608.28170

Text Restoration of Ancient Documents with Language Models

Abstract

Purpose - This study investigates the feasibility of restoring missing text caused by physical lacunae in damaged ancient manuscripts using language models. Methodology - The study proposes different scenarios to replicate real-world conditions. Language models of different architectures are applied according to their suitability to each scenario. We also propose several decoding strategies that further enhance performance and address the discrepancy between lacuna boundaries and the models' tokenization schemes. Findings - The results reveal that text restoration of these documents cannot be fully automated, but it can serve as a useful tool to assist paleographers in their work. Model performance varies greatly depending on which structural part of the document needs to be restored and whether the character length of missing text is available. Originality - This is the first study and to analyze model performance on formulaic and non-formulaic content and the impact of lacuna length awareness in manuscript restoration. Both are recurring challenges in paleographers' manual restoration work. Through systematic comparison and both qualitative and quantitative analysis of different models' performance under varying settings, this study offers a guideline for developing assistive tools to support paleographers.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Shibingfeng Zhang, Edoardo Caraffa, Annafelicia Zuffrano, Maddalena Modesti, Giovanni Colavizza. 2026-08-28. Text Restoration of Ancient Documents with Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28170

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

When Robots Mishear Us: Mapping the Safety Risks of Voice-Controlled Embodied AI

We investigate whether automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors in user input can lead to unsafe outputs from Embodied AI (EAI) models. We find that ASR errors can lead to harmful instructions being accepted and executed by EAI models, thereby reducing safety. We simulate ASR errors and combine them with existing safety benchmarks (SafeAgentBench and POEX) to evaluate how different errors affect embodied AI safety. We find that some of them preserve semantic structure but increase harmful ambiguity, while others weaken the model refusal behaviour and allow unsafe plans to be generated and executed. We show that in some cases automatic correction of ASR errors can reduce the risk, but this is not always effective. Overall, we show that ASR errors lead to significant safety risks for embodied AI.

cs.AI

Sleight of Word Benchmark: Can Language Models Notice If Their Own Output Was Tampered With?

The output of a Language Model can be tampered with \emph{while} the model is writing it. A simple test can thus be constructed by evaluating the model's perception of this external perturbation. In this spirit, a simple benchmark is built in which a single word is consistently substituted with another in the generation process. We call this method \emph{Sleight of Word}. Two distinct axes are measured: metrics that relate to the model's surprise, as well as an evaluation of the textual reaction for 19 different open-weight language models.

cs.CL

TCS-BENCH: Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Generative AI Theoretical Computer Science Research Ability

We introduce TCS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on research-level Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) proof generation. TCS-Bench consists of theorem-proving tasks from papers published at top theoretical computer science venues (STOC, FOCS, and SODA). Each task provides the necessary context to derive a self-contained proof for a target result. We evaluate state-of-the-art models on this benchmark. We verify the correctness of generated proofs via a verification agent, and further benchmark the verifier against human-expert proof judgements on a set of target statements and generated proofs pairs. Our reference verifier achieves over 90% accuracy on the expert labeled set.

cs.CL