GLM-OCR Technical Report

GLM-OCR Technical Report

Shuaiqi Duan⋆1 Yadong Xue⋆1 Weihan Wang⋆1 Zhe Su1 Huan Liu1 Sheng Yang1 Guobing Gan1 Guo Wang1 Zihan Wang1 Shengdong Yan1 Dexin Jin1 Yuxuan Zhang1 Guohong Wen1 Yanfeng Wang1 Yutao Zhang1 Xiaohan Zhang1 Wenyi Hong1 Yukuo Cen1 Da Yin1 Bin Chen1 Wenmeng Yu†1 Xiaotao Gu†1 Jie Tang2

1Zhipu AI 2Tsinghua University ⋆Equal contribution †Project leader

§ Code: https://github.com/zai-org/GLM-OCR Model: https://huggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-OCR ? Demo: https://ocr.z.ai/

ABSTRACT

GLM-OCR is an efficient 0.9B-parameter compact multimodal model designed for real-world document understanding. It combines a 0.4B-parameter CogViT visual encoder with a 0.5B-parameter GLM language decoder, achieving a strong balance between computational efficiency and recognition performance. To ad- dress the inefficiency of standard autoregressive decoding in deterministic OCR tasks, GLM-OCR introduces a Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) mechanism that predicts multiple tokens per step, significantly improving decoding throughput while keeping memory overhead low through shared parameters. At the system level, a two-stage pipeline is adopted: PP-DocLayout-V3 first performs layout analysis, followed by parallel region-level recognition. Extensive evaluations on public benchmarks and industrial scenarios show that GLM-OCR achieves com- petitive or state-of-the-art performance in document parsing, text and formula transcription, table structure recovery, and key information extraction. Its com- pact architecture and structured generation make it suitable for both resource- constrained edge deployment and large-scale production systems.

GLM-OCR

PaddleOCR-VL-1.5

PaddleOCR-VL

MinerU2.5 Gemini-3 Pro

Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B

Gemini-2.5 Pro MonkeyOCR-pro-3B

dots.ocr

MonkeyOCR-3BQwen2.5-VL-72BDeepseek-OCR MonkeyOCR-pro-1.2B

PP-StructureV3MinerU2-VLM

GPT-5.2 Dolphin-1.5 MinerU2-pipeline

Dolphin

70

80

90

100

90

94.6 94.5 92.9 90.7 90.3 90.0 89.6 88.9 88.4 87.1 87.0 87.0 86.7 85.6 85.5 83.2

75.5 74.7

71.3

80

90

100

96.5 96.1 95.3 95.2 94.6 93.5

Text Score

80

90

100

94.3 94.2

89.2 88.5 88.3 88.3

Formula Score

80

90

100

93.5 92.8

88.3 88.2 87.5 86.9

Table TEDS

80

90

100

95.8 95.6 95.6 94.7 93.6 92.9

Reading Order Score

GLM-OCR

PaddleOCR-VL-1.5

PaddleOCR-VL

MinerU2.5

Gemini-3 Pro

Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B

Gemini-2.5 Pro

MonkeyOCR-pro-3B

dots.ocr

MonkeyOCR-3B

Qwen2.5-VL-72B

Deepseek-OCR

MonkeyOCR-pro-1.2B

PP-StructureV3

MinerU2-VLM

GPT-5.2

Dolphin-1.5

MinerU2-pipeline

Dolphin

Figure 1: Performance of GLM-OCR on OmniDocBench v1.5.

1

CONTENTS

1 Introduction 3

2 Methodology 4

2.1 Model Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 Training Recipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 Evaluation 6

3.1 Public Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.2 In-House Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4 Inference and Deployment 8

4.1 Local Deployment and SDK Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4.2 Model-as-a-Service (MaaS) API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.3 Fine-Tuning Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5 Intended Use Cases 9

5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5.2 Document Parsing with GLM-OCR SDK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5.3 Lightweight OCR and Information Extraction with the Base Model . . . . . . . . . 10

5.3.1 Text Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5.3.2 Table Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5.3.3 Formula Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5.3.4 Key Information Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5.4 Summary of Usage Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

6 Limitations 13

6.1 Two-Stage Architectural Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

6.2 Data Coverage Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

6.3 Structured Output Variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

6.4 Key Information Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

7 Conclusion 14

2

1 INTRODUCTION

Document understanding is a core capability in modern information systems, supporting the ex- traction and structuring of knowledge from visually rich and layout-intensive documents such as financial reports, scientific articles, contracts, and invoices. Traditional OCR systems [29; 12; 6] mainly focus on plain text transcription and rely on multi-stage pipelines with handcrafted rules for layout parsing and downstream information extraction. While effective for simple scenarios, these approaches often struggle with complex layouts, diverse document formats, and real-world production requirements.

Recent multimodal large language models (MLLMs) [2; 31; 30] unify visual perception and lan- guage understanding within a single framework and significantly improve document understanding performance. However, their large model size and autoregressive decoding paradigm lead to high computational cost, slow inference, and substantial memory consumption, which makes large-scale deployment under high-concurrency or edge environments challenging.

In practical production systems, document intelligence solutions must simultaneously provide: (1) strong performance on complex content such as tables, formulas, code, and seals, (2) high- throughput and low-latency inference, and (3) flexible integration and domain adaptation. GLM- OCR is developed to address these system-level requirements within a unified multimodal frame- work.

GLM-OCR is a lightweight multimodal OCR model for comprehensive document understanding. Built on the GLM-V encoder–decoder framework [31], it combines a 0.4B-scale CogViT visual encoder trained in large-scale image–text data, a lightweight cross-modal connector and a 0.5B- scale GLM language decoder [9]. The entire model contains only 0.9B parameters, enabling high- throughput and low-latency inference while maintaining strong recognition performance.

Beyond architectural optimization, GLM-OCR also considers the mismatch between conventional autoregressive generation and the characteristics of OCR tasks. OCR is inherently a deterministic task with strong local dependencies and explicit structural supervision, where strictly autoregressive token-by-token decoding is inefficient. Therefore, we introduce Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) [15] into both training and inference. MTP enables the simultaneous prediction of multiple tokens, substantially improving training efficiency and decoding throughput while preserving recognition accuracy, and is particularly advantageous for long structured outputs such as tables. To control the additional memory overhead introduced by MTP, we further adopt a parameter-sharing scheme across the draft models, which substantially reduces the additional GPU memory overhead [35]. In practice, GLM-OCR is trained to predict ten tokens per step and generates 5.2 tokens per decoding step on average at inference time, bringing approximately 50% throughput improvement.

At the system level, GLM-OCR adopts a two-stage pipeline consisting of layout analysis and parallel content recognition. The layout stage is powered by PP-DocLayout-V3 [7], which detects structured regions and enables parallel recognition across different document areas. This design improves both robustness and processing efficiency for complex real-world documents.

Results. Figure 2 shows that GLM-OCR achieves 94.6 on OmniDocBench v1.5 [24], ranking first among all evaluated models despite its compact 0.9B size. Besides, GLM-OCR delivers strong performance across text recognition, formula recognition, table parsing, and key information extrac- tion, reaching 94.0 on OCRBench (Text) [17] and 96.5 on UniMERNet [32], and achieving 85.2 on PubTabNet [36] and 86.0 on TEDS 1. It also performs competitively on information extraction benchmarks such as Nanonets-KIE and Handwritten-Forms [18], with performance comparable to significantly larger general multimodal models.

In addition to public benchmarks, we evaluate GLM-OCR on six high-frequency real-world scenar- ios, including code document parsing, natural-scene table recognition, handwritten text recognition, multilingual OCR 2, seal recognition, and receipt KIE. GLM-OCR consistently delivers strong re- sults across all settings, achieving 91.5 on real-world table recognition, 90.5 on seal recognition, and 94.5 on receipt KIE. These results indicate that GLM-OCR generalizes beyond curated benchmarks and remains effective under practical production conditions.

1https://modelscope.cn/datasets/jockerK/TEDS_TEST 2Chinese, English, French, Spanish, Russian, German, Japanese, and Korean

3

Deployment and Finetuning. GLM-OCR supports efficient inference with modern serving frame- works such as vLLM [13] 3, SGLang 4, and Ollama 5, enabling deployment in both large-scale and resource-constrained edge scenarios. It also provides full finetuning support through LLaMA- Factory 6, enabling rapid adaptation to domain-specific document understanding tasks 7.

2 METHODOLOGY

In this section, we present the overall design of the GLM-OCR framework, including its architectural components, task formulation, and training strategy. We first introduce the core design motivations that guide our system, followed by a detailed description of the model architecture and task-specific pipelines. Finally, we elaborate on the multi-stage training recipe that progressively aligns visual and language representations, enhances structured generation ability, and optimizes task performance through supervised and reinforcement learning.

Layout Detector

Region Cropper

PPDocLayoutV3

Detected Regions (text / formula / table)

Vision Encoder (CogViT ~ 400M)

LLM Decoder (GLM ~ 500M)

Main Head

MTP Layer 1

MTP Layer 2

MTP Layer k

…

Shared Parameters

GLM-OCR

Recognition Content (text / formula / table)

Structured Outputs (Markdown & Json)

请按下列JSON格式输出图 中信息: ```json { … } ```

Structured Outputs (Json)

Task2: Key Info Extraction

Task1: Document Parsing

Figure 2: Overall architecture and workflow of the GLM-OCR framework. This system supports two primary tasks: Document Parsing (Task 1), which combines layout detection and region cropping to produce structured Markdown and JSON outputs; and Key Information Extraction (Task 2), which directly extracts structured JSON data based on input visual prompts.

2.1 MODEL OVERVIEW

To provide a comprehensive understanding of the GLM-OCR architecture, we first discuss the pri- mary design rationale behind our approach, followed by a detailed description of the model structure and its execution across different tasks.

Motivation. Three fundamental observations and goals in document understanding inform our architectural design:

1. Integration of Layout Analysis in Document Parsing: In practice, we observe that small-scale models are highly susceptible to hallucinations and repetitive generation when processing docu- ments with complex layouts. By explicitly introducing a layout analysis module prior to recog- nition, we decompose complex layout structures into multiple simpler sub-problems, significantly enhancing the overall performance and stability of the model. Furthermore, partitioning large, com- plex pages into smaller, independent regions allows for parallel recognition, which substantially improves inference efficiency.

2. Incorporation of Key Information Extraction (KIE): Document parsing and KIE can both be formulated as structured generation problems conditioned on visual inputs. While document parsing focuses on reconstructing the full structural representation of a document (e.g., Markdown

3https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm 4https://github.com/sgl-project/sglang 5https://github.com/ollama/ollama 6https://github.com/hiyouga/LlamaFactory 7Tutorial: https://github.com/zai-org/GLM-OCR/blob/main/examples/finetune/README.md

4

or JSON), KIE aims to generate task-specific structured fields from the same visual source. From a modeling perspective, both tasks require: (i) robust visual-text alignment, (ii) structural reasoning over layout and semantic regions, and (iii) the ability to generate well-formed structured outputs.

Therefore, instead of treating them as isolated pipelines, we unify them under a shared generative framework. This design encourages the model to learn generalizable document-level representa- tions while leveraging task-specific prompts to control output formats. Such a unified formulation improves parameter efficiency and promotes cross-task knowledge transfer without introducing ad- ditional architectural complexity.

3. Adoption of Multi-Token Prediction (MTP): Standard LLM decoding generates one token at a time, which can be computationally expensive and slow for long-form document generation. We employ Multi-token Prediction (MTP) to address two primary challenges:

• Inference Speed: By predicting k tokens simultaneously, we significantly reduce the total number of decoding steps.

• Contextual Modeling: MTP encourages the model to plan further ahead. This is particu- larly beneficial in OCR tasks where structural tokens (e.g., table tags or Markdown syntax) exhibit strong local dependencies. Consequently, this approach yields fewer "broken" tags and produces more robust structured outputs.

Architecture. As illustrated in Figure 2, the system is centered around the GLM-OCR Core, which follows a vision-language generative paradigm. The core model consists of:

• Vision Encoder (CogViT, 400M parameters): Responsible for extracting high-level vi- sual representations from document images.

• LLM Decoder (GLM, 500M parameters): An autoregressive language model that gen- erates structured textual outputs conditioned on visual embeddings and textual prompts.

The visual features produced by the encoder are projected into the language embedding space and fed into the decoder as prefix tokens. During decoding, the model predicts structured outputs (e.g., Markdown or JSON) in an autoregressive manner.

To improve decoding efficiency and structural consistency, we introduce a Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) mechanism. In addition to the main prediction head, we attach k shared-parameter auxiliary heads that simultaneously predict the next k tokens. These heads share the same parameters but are trained to model different future offsets. During inference, this allows the model to generate multiple tokens per step, reducing latency while encouraging better local structural coherence.

The framework supports two primary tasks under a unified generative formulation:

Task 1: Document Parsing.

Given a document image, the pipeline first performs layout analysis using PPDocLayoutV3, which decomposes the document into semantically coherent regions (e.g., paragraphs, tables, formulas). Each region is independently processed by the GLM-OCR Core.

The generated regional outputs are subsequently aggregated by a Merge & Post Process module, which restores the reading order and produces structured outputs in Markdown and JSON formats. This modular design reduces hallucination risks, improves robustness to complex layouts, and en- ables parallel processing of document regions.

Task 2: Key Information Extraction.

For KIE, the full document image is directly fed into the GLM-OCR Core together with a task- specific textual prompt (e.g., instructing the model to extract invoice fields in JSON format). Unlike document parsing, this task does not rely on explicit layout cropping. Instead, the model learns to attend to relevant visual regions implicitly under prompt guidance.

Both tasks are thus unified as conditional structured generation problems, differing only in prepro- cessing strategy and prompt specification.

5

2.2 TRAINING RECIPE

The training process of GLM-OCR is divided into several distinct stages, systematically progress- ing from vision-language alignment to task-specific refinement and reinforcement learning. The detailed training recipe, including the data types, learning rates, and training scale for each phase, is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Training Recipe for GLM-OCR across different stages.

Stage Phase Data Types

Stage 1 Vision Encoder Training Image-text pairs, Grounding / Retrieval data

Stage 2.1 Pretrain Image-text pairs, Document parsing, Grounding, VQA

Stage 2.2 Pretrain with MTP Document parsing, Grounding, VQA

Stage 3 SFT with MTP Text / Formula / Table recognition, KIE

Stage 4 RL Text / Formula / Table recognition, KIE

Stage 1: Vision Encoder Training. We first train the vision encoder using large-scale image-text and grounding data to establish strong visual representation capabilities. In this stage, the model is trained on a dataset scaled up to tens of billions of image-text pairs. The training incorporates a dual objective of MIM and CLIP tasks. Furthermore, we employ knowledge distillation from an in-house ViT with a larger parameter size to further enhance the encoder’s feature extraction capability.

Stage 2: Vision-Language Pretraining. In Stage 2.1, we append GLM-0.5B to the Vision Trans- former (ViT) and jointly pretrain the full model on image-text, document parsing, grounding, and VQA data to align multimodal representations. In Stage 2.2, we introduce the Multi-Token Predic- tion (MTP) objective to adapt the decoder for efficient structured generation.

Stage 3: Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT). In this stage, we fine-tune the model on curated OCR datasets covering text recognition, formula transcription, table structure recovery, and key informa- tion extraction. The objective is to specialize the model for high-precision structured outputs under real-world document distributions. Multi-Token Prediction remains enabled to ensure consistency between training and inference. The data mixture is balanced to prevent overfitting to any single sub-task and to maintain cross-task generalization.

Stage 4: Reinforcement Learning (RL). The final stage applies GRPO [28] to improve structured output reliability and task-specific accuracy. Training samples are generated via rollout from the SFT model, evaluated automatically, and stratified by difficulty to construct a graded optimization set.

The reward function is task-aware and integrates both accuracy-based metrics and structural valida- tion signals. The design is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Reward function design in Stage 4 RL training.

Task Primary Accuracy Reward Additional Constraints

Text Recognition Normalized Edit Distance Repetition penalty Formula Recognition CDM score Structural validity check Table Recognition TEDS score Tag closure verification, structural parsing Key Information Extraction (KIE) Field-level F1 score JSON parse validation, missing/duplicate field penalty

Global Regularization: Repetition ratio penalty, malformed structure penalty

3 EVALUATION

In this section, we evaluate the performance of GLM-OCR against current state-of-the-art pipeline tools, general Vision-Language Models (VLMs), and specialized OCR VLMs. To provide a com- prehensive assessment, the evaluation is divided into two parts: standard Public Benchmarks and custom In-House Benchmarks.

6

Table 3: Performance comparison of various OCR models. The results of Gemini-3-Pro and GPT- 5.2-2025-12-11 are in gray as they are provided for reference only and excluded from the best-score ranking. The best results among the evaluated models are highlighted in bold. : Dataset GLM-OCR PaddleOCR -VL-1.5

Deepseek -OCR2

MinerU 2.5 dots.ocr

Gemini-3 -Pro

GPT-5.2 -2025-12-11

Document Parsing

OmniDocBench v1.5 94.6 94.5 91.1 90.7 88.4 90.3 85.4 OCRBench (Text) 94.0 75.3 34.7 75.3 92.1 91.9 83.7 UniMERNet 96.5 96.1 85.8 96.4 90.0 96.4 90.5 PubTabNet 85.2 84.6 - 88.4 71.0 91.4 84.4 TEDS_TEST 86.0 83.3 - 85.4 62.4 81.8 67.6

Key Information Extraction

Nanonets-KIE 93.7 - - - - 95.2 87.5 Handwritten-KIE 86.1 - - - - 94.5 78.2

3.1 PUBLIC BENCHMARKS

We first evaluate GLM-OCR on widely recognized public datasets encompassing Document Parsing and KIE tasks.

Overall Benchmark Performance. As shown in Table 3, GLM-OCR demonstrates superior per- formance across the majority of standard datasets. In Document Parsing, our model achieves the highest scores on OmniDocBench v1.5 (94.6), OCRBench Text (94.0), UniMERNet (96.5), and TEDS_TEST (86.0). It remains highly competitive on PubTabNet (85.2), trailing only MinerU 2.5. Furthermore, GLM-OCR establishes a clear SOTA in KIE, outperforming all available open-source competitors on Nanonets-KIE (93.7) and Handwritten-KIE (86.1), and even narrowing the gap with closed-source giants like Gemini-3-Pro.

OmniDocBench v1.5 Analysis. To better understand the model’s document parsing capabilities, we present a granular breakdown of the OmniDocBench v1.5 results in Table 4. This benchmark compares pipeline tools, general VLMs of varying sizes, and specialized VLMs.

Remarkably, despite possessing only 0.9B parameters, GLM-OCR achieves the highest Over- all score (94.62), outperforming not only direct specialized competitors like PaddleOCR-VL-1.5 (94.50) and MinerU2.5 (90.67) but also massive general VLMs such as Qwen3-VL-235B (89.15) and Gemini-3 Pro (90.33).

A breakdown of sub-metrics indicates strong performance in table structure recovery. It achieves the absolute best scores in table recognition, scoring 93.96 on TableT EDS and 96.39 on TableT EDS−S . While PaddleOCR-VL-1.5 slightly edges out GLM-OCR in TextEdit (0.035 vs 0.040) and FormulaCDM (94.21 vs 93.90), GLM-OCR’s exceptional table parsing capabilities secure its posi- tion as the top-performing model overall, proving that specialized, parameter-efficient architectures can rival or surpass scale-heavy models in complex document parsing.

3.2 IN-HOUSE BENCHMARKS

To assess the robustness of GLM-OCR in highly complex, real-world industrial scenarios, we con- ducted evaluations on a custom suite of in-house benchmarks. These tasks include Code Document parsing, Real-world Table extraction, Handwritten Text recognition, Multilingual Text processing, Seal Recognition, and Receipt KIE.

As detailed in Table 5, GLM-OCR achieves the highest score in five out of six evaluated categories among the compared open-weight models. Most notably, GLM-OCR demonstrates a notable margin in challenging, niche domains:

• Seal Recognition: GLM-OCR achieves an exceptional score of 90.5, outperforming the next best open-weight model (dots.ocr at 63.0) by a massive margin and performing com- petitively with Gemini-3-Pro (91.3).

7

Table 4: Performance comparison with pipeline tools, general VLMs and specialized VLMs on OmniDocBench v1.5.

Model Type Methods Params Overall↑ Text↓ Edit

Formula↑ CDM

Table↑ TEDS

Table↑ TEDS-S

Reading Order↓ Edit

Pipeline Tools

Marker-1.8.2 [25] - 71.30 0.206 76.66 57.88 71.17 0.250 Mineru2-pipeline [23] - 75.51 0.209 76.55 70.90 79.11 0.225 PP-StructureV3 [6] - 86.73 0.073 85.79 81.68 89.48 0.073

General VLMs

GPT-4o [1] - 75.02 0.217 79.70 67.07 76.09 0.148 InternVL3-76B [37] 76B 80.33 0.131 83.42 70.64 77.74 0.113 InternVL3.5-241B [33] 241B 82.67 0.142 87.23 75.00 81.28 0.125 GPT-5.2 [22] - 85.50 0.123 86.11 82.66 87.35 0.099 Qwen2.5-VL-72B [3] 72B 87.02 0.094 88.27 82.15 86.22 0.102 Gemini-2.5 Pro [10] - 88.03 0.075 85.82 85.71 90.29 0.097 Qwen3-VL [2] 235B 89.15 0.069 88.14 86.21 90.55 0.068 Gemini-3 Pro [11] - 90.33 0.065 89.18 88.28 90.29 0.071

Specialized VLMs

Dolphin [8] 0.3B 74.67 0.125 67.85 68.70 77.77 0.124 OCRFlux-3B [4] 3B 74.82 0.193 68.03 75.75 80.23 0.202 Mistral OCR [20] - 78.83 0.164 82.84 70.03 78.04 0.144 POINTS-Reader [16] 3B 80.98 0.134 79.20 77.13 81.66 0.145 olmOCR-7B [26] 7B 81.79 0.096 86.04 68.92 74.77 0.121 Dolphin-1.5 [8] 0.3B 83.21 0.092 80.78 78.06 84.10 0.080 MinerU2-VLM [23] 0.9B 85.56 0.078 80.95 83.54 87.66 0.086 Nanonets-OCR-s [19] 3B 85.59 0.093 85.90 80.14 85.57 0.108 MonkeyOCR-pro-1.2B [14] 1.9B 86.96 0.084 85.02 84.24 89.02 0.130 Deepseek-OCR [34] 3B 87.01 0.073 83.37 84.97 88.80 0.086 MonkeyOCR-3B [14] 3.7B 87.13 0.075 87.45 81.39 85.92 0.129 dots.ocr [27] 3B 88.41 0.048 83.22 86.78 90.62 0.053 MonkeyOCR-pro-3B [14] 3.7B 88.85 0.075 87.25 86.78 90.63 0.128 MinerU2.5 [21] 1.2B 90.67 0.047 88.46 88.22 92.38 0.044 PaddleOCR-VL [5] 0.9B 92.86 0.035 91.22 90.89 94.76 0.043 PaddleOCR-VL-1.5 [7] 0.9B 94.50 0.035 94.21 92.76 95.79 0.042

GLM-OCR 0.9B 94.62 0.040 93.90 93.96 96.39 0.044

Table 5: Performance comparison on custom real-world scenarios. The results of Gemini-3-Pro and GPT-5.2-2025-12-11 are in gray as they are provided for reference only and excluded from the best-score ranking. The best results among the evaluated models are highlighted in bold.

Task GLM-OCR PaddleOCR -VL-1.5

Deepseek -OCR2

MinerU 2.5 dots.ocr

Gemini-3 -Pro

GPT-5.2 -2025-12-11

Code Document 84.7 75.8 82.1 82.9 80.8 86.9 84.4 Real-world Table 91.5 86.1 - 70.8 81.8 90.6 86.7 Handwritten Text 87.0 87.4 73.8 54.2 71.7 90.0 78.0 Multilingual Text 69.3 54.8 56.1 27.8 65.1 86.2 70.1 Seal Recognition 90.5 42.2 40.4 - 63.0 91.3 58.8 Receipt KIE 94.5 - - - - 97.3 83.5

• Multilingual Text: The model excels in diverse linguistic contexts, scoring 69.3 compared to PaddleOCR-VL-1.5’s 54.8.

• Complex Formatting: It leads in Code Document parsing (84.7) and Real-world Table extraction (91.5), proving its utility in highly structured and noisy environments.

While PaddleOCR-VL-1.5 holds a marginal lead in Handwritten Text (87.4 vs. GLM-OCR’s 87.0), GLM-OCR remains highly effective. Crucially, in practical application tasks like Receipt KIE, GLM-OCR (94.5) easily surpasses proprietary models like GPT-5.2 (83.5). These in-house results validate that GLM-OCR is not merely optimizing for academic datasets but is highly capable of generalizing to the noisy, variable conditions of real-world OCR deployments.

4 INFERENCE AND DEPLOYMENT

4.1 LOCAL DEPLOYMENT AND SDK INTEGRATION

With a compact parameter scale of 0.9B, GLM-OCR is highly optimized for localized inference and resource-constrained environments. The model supports efficient deployment across mainstream

8

frameworks, including vLLM, SGLang, and Ollama. To facilitate seamless integration, a compre- hensive SDK is provided for end-to-end document parsing workflows 8.

To assess operational efficiency, we conducted a comparative throughput analysis of various OCR pipelines. Under identical hardware configurations and testing conditions (single replica, single con- currency), we evaluated the parsing and Markdown-export speeds for both image and PDF inputs. As demonstrated in Table 6, GLM-OCR outperforms comparable methods, achieving a throughput of 1.86 pages/second for PDF documents and 0.67 images/second for standalone image files.

Table 6: Throughput comparison of different OCR models for Image and PDF inputs.

Model Image Input PDF Input (pages / s) (pages / s)

GLM-OCR 0.67 1.86 PaddleOCR-VL-1.5 0.39 1.22 Deepseek-OCR2 0.32 − MinerU2.5 0.18 0.48 dots.ocr 0.10 −

4.2 MODEL-AS-A-SERVICE (MAAS) API

For cloud-based deployments, GLM-OCR is accessible via a MaaS API 9. The service employs a highly cost-effective, unified pricing model for both input and output tokens, set at 0.2 RMB per million tokens. Under this pricing structure, an expenditure of 1 RMB is sufficient to process approximately 2,000 A4-sized scanned images or 200 simple-layout PDFs (10 pages each). This represents a significant reduction in operational overhead, decreasing processing costs to approxi- mately one-tenth of those associated with traditional OCR solutions.

4.3 FINE-TUNING CAPABILITIES

In scenarios where specific domain adaptation or enhanced task performance is required, GLM-OCR supports direct fine-tuning utilizing the LLaMA-Factory framework. Comprehen- sive tutorials and configuration guidelines for the fine-tuning process are available in the of- ficial repository: https://github.com/zai-org/GLM-OCR/blob/main/examples/ finetune/README.md.

5 INTENDED USE CASES

5.1 OVERVIEW

GLM-OCR is designed to support both high-level document understanding workflows and lightweight optical character recognition (OCR) tasks. Depending on application requirements, users may (1) integrate the GLM-OCR SDK for complex document parsing pipelines, or (2) directly invoke the base model for focused recognition and structured information extraction tasks. This section describes the two primary usage paradigms and their representative application scenarios.

5.2 DOCUMENT PARSING WITH GLM-OCR SDK

The GLM-OCR SDK 10 provides a comprehensive interface for performing document parsing, in- cluding layout-aware parsing, multimodal recognition, and structured output generation. It is in- tended for enterprise-grade or production-level workflows where documents may contain heteroge- neous content such as paragraphs, tables, mathematical expressions, and key-value pairs.

8https://github.com/zai-org/GLM-OCR 9https://docs.bigmodel.cn/cn/guide/models/vlm/glm-ocr 10https://github.com/zai-org/GLM-OCR

9

GLM-OCR Output

Input Image GLM-OCR OutputInput Image

Case1 Case2

Figure 3: Example of GLM-OCR SDK for complex document parsing.

The output is generated in a structured markdown format, preserving logical document hierarchy and structural relationships. The example demonstrates that the SDK supports end-to-end parsing of heterogeneous documents while maintaining structural fidelity and semantic coherence.

5.3 LIGHTWEIGHT OCR AND INFORMATION EXTRACTION WITH THE BASE MODEL

In addition to the SDK, GLM-OCR can be directly used as a standalone model for lightweight OCR and targeted extraction tasks. This mode is appropriate for scenarios requiring lower integration overhead, flexible prompting, or rapid prototyping.

All tasks in this mode are controlled via explicit prompt instructions. Below we describe four pri- mary task categories.

5.3.1 TEXT RECOGNITION

Prompt:

Text Recognition:

This mode is used for general printed or handwritten text transcription. The model outputs plain text corresponding to the visible textual content in the input image.

Example Scenario. Figure 4 illustrates a real-world text recognition scenario using a restaurant menu board containing multilingual content (e.g., Italian dish names and English phrases) and price annotations with special characters (e.g., the euro symbol). The input image exhibits typical chal- lenges such as handwritten-style fonts, varying character sizes, non-uniform spacing, perspective distortion, and background clutter.

Despite these complexities, the model accurately transcribes the textual content while preserving the original line structure and semantic grouping. In particular, it correctly reconstructs line breaks, cap- italization, punctuation, numerical values, and currency symbols (e.g., “5,10C”, “14,00”), demon- strating robustness to layout variations and moderate visual noise. This example highlights the model’s ability to perform reliable optical character recognition in unconstrained, real-world envi- ronments.

5.3.2 TABLE RECOGNITION

Prompt:

Table Recognition:

10

GLM-OCR Output

Input Image

PIZZA WI-FI FREE INSIDE MARGHERITA 5,10€ CAPRICCIOSA 8,50€ DIAVOLA 7,90€ 4 STAGIONI 8,50€ 4 FORMAGGI 8,50€ MARINARA 5,10€ SAPORITA 8,50€ VOURSTEL 7,10€ CAPRESE 9,50€ PROSCIUTTO 7,90€ GORGONZOLA 7,90€ VEGETARIANA 8,50€ FUNGHI 6,90€ CALZONE 14,00

Figure 4: Example of GLM-OCR Text Recognition.

This task focuses on recovering the structural representation of tabular data. The output may be formatted as Markdown tables or structured text that preserves row and column alignment.

GLM-OCR Output

Input Image

Figure 5: Example of GLM-OCR Table Recognition.

Example Scenario. Figure 5 presents a clinical summary table containing hierarchical column headers, merged cells, percentage values, missing-value indicators, and statistical annotations (e.g., p-values). The input image exhibits typical document-analysis challenges, including low contrast, dense numerical content, multi-level header grouping, and complex row–column alignment.

GLM-OCR accurately reconstructs the logical table structure by identifying column groups (e.g., surgical vs. non-surgical cohorts), preserving header hierarchies, and correctly aligning numerical entries with their corresponding attributes. In addition to faithfully transcribing cell content, the model maintains structural consistency such as row ordering, column correspondence, and percent- age–value pairing. This structured reconstruction enables direct conversion into machine-readable formats (e.g., CSV or spreadsheet tables), thereby facilitating downstream statistical analysis, data validation, and automated reporting workflows.

11

5.3.3 FORMULA RECOGNITION

Prompt:

Formula Recognition:

This mode is intended for recognizing mathematical expressions and converting them into structured formats (e.g., LaTeX).

GLM-OCR Output Input Image

Figure 6: Example of GLM-OCR Formula Recognition.

Example Scenario. Given an image containing inline and display equations from a scientific manuscript, the model transcribes the formulas into syntactically valid LaTeX expressions. The output preserves operators, superscripts, subscripts, and fraction structures, enabling direct reuse in academic or technical documentation.

As depicted in Figure 6, given an image containing dense mathematical equations, GLM-OCR accu- rately transcribes the visual content into syntactically valid LaTeX expressions. The model demon- strates high fidelity in parsing complex two-dimensional spatial layouts, successfully preserving intricate structural elements such as matrices, determinants, and multi-level subscripts. This pre- cise reconstruction eliminates the need for manual correction, enabling direct and seamless reuse in academic and technical documentation.

5.3.4 KEY INFORMATION EXTRACTION

For structured information extraction tasks, the prompt must explicitly specify a strict JSON schema. The model is expected to generate output that conforms to the provided format.

Example Scenario. In a representative example involving a dense customs declaration form, the model successfully extracts structured fields based on a detailed input prompt. It accurately pop- ulates complex, nested JSON entities—such as shipper details, unified social credit codes, and itemized goods information—directly from the visual layout. The output strictly adheres to the user-provided JSON schema, eliminating hallucinated keys and facilitating seamless integration into automated processing pipelines or structured databases.

5.4 SUMMARY OF USAGE PARADIGMS

The two usage modes address complementary needs:

• GLM-OCR SDK is designed for comprehensive, layout-aware, multi-element document parsing in production environments.

12

GLM-OCR Output

Input Image Input Prompt

Figure 7: Example of GLM-OCR Key Information Extraction.

• Base model prompting enables lightweight, flexible OCR and targeted information ex- traction for modular or task-specific applications.

Together, these paradigms allow GLM-OCR to support a broad spectrum of document understanding workflows, ranging from rapid prototyping to enterprise-scale deployment.

6 LIMITATIONS

Although GLM-OCR demonstrates competitive performance across diverse benchmarks and practi- cal scenarios, several limitations remain.

6.1 TWO-STAGE ARCHITECTURAL CONSTRAINTS

The current two-stage pipeline, consisting of layout analysis followed by region-level recognition, may introduce error propagation. In cases of inaccurate layout detection, downstream recognition performance may degrade. Additionally, complex layouts involving cross-page dependencies or irregular multi-column structures may lead to imperfect reading order reconstruction.

6.2 DATA COVERAGE LIMITATIONS

Model performance is influenced by the distribution and diversity of training data. Degradation may occur in scenarios involving:

• Extremely low-resolution or heavily distorted documents,

• Highly complex mathematical expressions,

• Dense or irregular tabular structures,

• Underrepresented languages in the training corpus.

6.3 STRUCTURED OUTPUT VARIABILITY

As a generative model, GLM-OCR may exhibit minor stochastic variation in formatting behaviors, particularly in line breaks and whitespace handling. Although reinforcement learning and structural supervision mitigate this effect, strict formatting guarantees cannot be fully ensured.

13

6.4 KEY INFORMATION EXTRACTION

While the model supports prompt-based KIE, extraction accuracy depends on prompt specification and schema clarity. In complex forms with implicit or ambiguous field boundaries, incomplete or redundant outputs may occur.

These limitations represent areas for continued research and system refinement.

7 CONCLUSION

This report introduces GLM-OCR as a practical solution for structured document understanding un- der real-world system constraints. Instead of relying on large model scaling, the design prioritizes controllable latency, memory efficiency, and structured output reliability. Through the combination of layout-aware preprocessing and multi-token decoding, the system improves throughput and stabil- ity while maintaining competitive recognition accuracy across diverse document types. The results indicate that careful alignment between model architecture, decoding strategy, and task structure can yield substantial efficiency gains without increasing parameter scale.

From an engineering perspective, GLM-OCR demonstrates that document intelligence systems ben- efit from modular pipelines, efficient generation mechanisms, and deployment-oriented optimiza- tion. The model supports local inference, cloud-based serving, and domain-specific fine-tuning, enabling integration into heterogeneous production environments. Future development will focus on improving robustness under extreme layout complexity, enhancing multilingual coverage, and strengthening structured output consistency to further reduce downstream integration costs.

REFERENCES

[1] Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023.

[2] Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, Keqin Chen, Xionghui Chen, Zesen Cheng, Lianghao Deng, Wei Ding, Chang Gao, Chunjiang Ge, Wenbin Ge, Zhifang Guo, Qidong Huang, Jie Huang, Fei Huang, Binyuan Hui, Shutong Jiang, Zhaohai Li, Mingsheng Li, Mei Li, Kaixin Li, Zicheng Lin, Junyang Lin, Xuejing Liu, Jiawei Liu, Chenglong Liu, Yang Liu, Dayiheng Liu, Shixuan Liu, Dunjie Lu, Ruilin Luo, Chenxu Lv, Rui Men, Lingchen Meng, Xuancheng Ren, Xingzhang Ren, Sibo Song, Yuchong Sun, Jun Tang, Jianhong Tu, Jianqiang Wan, Peng Wang, Pengfei Wang, Qiuyue Wang, Yuxuan Wang, Tianbao Xie, Yiheng Xu, Haiyang Xu, Jin Xu, Zhibo Yang, Mingkun Yang, Jianxin Yang, An Yang, Bowen Yu, Fei Zhang, Hang Zhang, Xi Zhang, Bo Zheng, Humen Zhong, Jingren Zhou, Fan Zhou, Jing Zhou, Yuanzhi Zhu, and Ke Zhu. Qwen3-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025.

[3] Shuai Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Sibo Song, Kai Dang, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Jun Tang, et al. Qwen2. 5-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923, 2025.

[4] chatdoc com. Ocrflux. https://github.com/chatdoc-com/OCRFlux, 2025. Accessed:2025-09-25.

[5] Cheng Cui, Ting Sun, Suyin Liang, Tingquan Gao, Zelun Zhang, Jiaxuan Liu, Xueqing Wang, Changda Zhou, Hongen Liu, Manhui Lin, Yue Zhang, Yubo Zhang, Handong Zheng, Jing Zhang, Jun Zhang, Yi Liu, Dianhai Yu, and Yanjun Ma. Paddleocr-vl: Boosting multilingual document parsing via a 0.9b ultra-compact vision-language model, 2025. URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/2510.14528.

[6] Cheng Cui, Ting Sun, Manhui Lin, Tingquan Gao, Yubo Zhang, Jiaxuan Liu, Xueqing Wang, Zelun Zhang, Changda Zhou, Hongen Liu, Yue Zhang, Wenyu Lv, Kui Huang, Yichao Zhang, Jing Zhang, Jun Zhang, Yi Liu, Dianhai Yu, and Yanjun Ma. Paddleocr 3.0 technical report, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.05595.

14

[7] Cheng Cui, Ting Sun, Suyin Liang, Tingquan Gao, Zelun Zhang, Jiaxuan Liu, Xueqing Wang, Changda Zhou, Hongen Liu, Manhui Lin, Yue Zhang, Yubo Zhang, Yi Liu, Dianhai Yu, and Yanjun Ma. Paddleocr-vl-1.5: Towards a multi-task 0.9b vlm for robust in-the-wild document parsing, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.21957.

[8] Hao Feng, Shu Wei, Xiang Fei, Wei Shi, Yingdong Han, Lei Liao, Jinghui Lu, Binghong Wu, Qi Liu, Chunhui Lin, et al. Dolphin: Document image parsing via heterogeneous anchor prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14059, 2025.

[9] Team GLM, Aohan Zeng, Bin Xu, Bowen Wang, Chenhui Zhang, Da Yin, Diego Rojas, Guanyu Feng, Hanlin Zhao, Hanyu Lai, Hao Yu, Hongning Wang, Jiadai Sun, Jiajie Zhang, Jiale Cheng, Jiayi Gui, Jie Tang, Jing Zhang, Juanzi Li, Lei Zhao, Lindong Wu, Lucen Zhong, Mingdao Liu, Minlie Huang, Peng Zhang, Qinkai Zheng, Rui Lu, Shuaiqi Duan, Shudan Zhang, Shulin Cao, Shuxun Yang, Weng Lam Tam, Wenyi Zhao, Xiao Liu, Xiao Xia, Xiao- han Zhang, Xiaotao Gu, Xin Lv, Xinghan Liu, Xinyi Liu, Xinyue Yang, Xixuan Song, Xunkai Zhang, Yifan An, Yifan Xu, Yilin Niu, Yuantao Yang, Yueyan Li, Yushi Bai, Yuxiao Dong, Zehan Qi, Zhaoyu Wang, Zhen Yang, Zhengxiao Du, Zhenyu Hou, and Zihan Wang. Chatglm: A family of large language models from glm-130b to glm-4 all tools, 2024.

[10] Google DeepMind. Gemini 2.5. https://blog.google/technology/ google-deepmind/gemini-model-thinking-updates-march-2025/, 2025.

[11] Google DeepMind. Gemini 3.0. https://blog.google/ products-and-platforms/products/gemini/gemini-3-collection/, 2025.

[12] JaidedAI. Easyocr. https://github.com/JaidedAI/EasyOCR, 2020.

[13] Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 29th Sym- posium on Operating Systems Principles, 2023.

[14] Zhang Li, Yuliang Liu, Qiang Liu, Zhiyin Ma, Ziyang Zhang, Shuo Zhang, Zidun Guo, Jiarui Zhang, Xinyu Wang, and Xiang Bai. Monkeyocr: Document parsing with a structure- recognition-relation triplet paradigm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05218, 2025.

[15] Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024.

[16] Yuan Liu, Zhongyin Zhao, Le Tian, Haicheng Wang, Xubing Ye, Yangxiu You, Zilin Yu, Chuhan Wu, Xiao Zhou, Yang Yu, et al. Points-reader: Distillation-free adaptation of vision- language models for document conversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.01215, 2025.

[17] Yuliang Liu, Zhang Li, Mingxin Huang, Biao Yang, Wenwen Yu, Chunyuan Li, Xu-Cheng Yin, Cheng-Lin Liu, Lianwen Jin, and Xiang Bai. Ocrbench: on the hidden mystery of ocr in large multimodal models. Science China Information Sciences, 67(12), December 2024. ISSN 1869-1919. doi: 10.1007/s11432-024-4235-6. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11432-024-4235-6.

[18] Souvik Mandal, Nayancy Gupta, Ashish Talewar, Paras Ahuja, Prathamesh Juvatkar, and Gourinath Banda. Idpleaderboard: A unified leaderboard for intelligent document process- ing tasks. https://idp-leaderboard.org, 2025.

[19] Souvik Mandal, Ashish Talewar, Paras Ahuja, and Prathamesh Juvatkar. Nanonets-ocr-s: A model for transforming documents into structured markdown with intelligent content recogni- tion and semantic tagging, 2025.

[20] Mistral AI Team. Mistral-ocr. https://mistral.ai/news/mistral-ocr?utm_ source=ai-bot.cn, 2025.

15

[21] Junbo Niu, Zheng Liu, Zhuangcheng Gu, Bin Wang, Linke Ouyang, Zhiyuan Zhao, Tao Chu, Tianyao He, Fan Wu, Qintong Zhang, et al. Mineru2. 5: A decoupled vision-language model for efficient high-resolution document parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.22186, 2025.

[22] OpenAI. Gpt-5.2 system card, 2025. URL https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/ 3a4153c8-c748-4b71-8e31-aecbde944f8d/oai_5_2_system-card.pdf.

[23] opendatalab. Mineru2.0-2505-0.9b. https://huggingface.co/opendatalab/ MinerU2.0-2505-0.9B, 2025.

[24] Linke Ouyang, Yuan Qu, Hongbin Zhou, Jiawei Zhu, Rui Zhang, Qunshu Lin, Bin Wang, Zhiyuan Zhao, Man Jiang, Xiaomeng Zhao, Jin Shi, Fan Wu, Pei Chu, Minghao Liu, Zhenx- iang Li, Chao Xu, Bo Zhang, Botian Shi, Zhongying Tu, and Conghui He. Omnidocbench: Benchmarking diverse pdf document parsing with comprehensive annotations, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.07626.

[25] Vik Paruchuri. Marker. https://github.com/datalab-to/marker, 2025. Ac- cessed: 2025-09-25.

[26] Jake Poznanski, Jon Borchardt, Jason Dunkelberger, Regan Huff, Daniel Lin, Aman Rangapur, Christopher Wilhelm, Kyle Lo, and Luca Soldaini. olmocr: Unlocking trillions of tokens in pdfs with vision language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18443, 2025.

[27] rednote-hilab. dots.ocr: Multilingual document layout parsing in a single vision-language model, 2025.

[28] Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024.

[29] Ray Smith. An overview of the tesseract ocr engine. In Ninth international conference on document analysis and recognition (ICDAR 2007), volume 2, pp. 629–633. IEEE, 2007.

[30] ByteDance Seed Team. Seed1.5-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.07062, 2025.

[31] V Team, Wenyi Hong, Wenmeng Yu, Xiaotao Gu, Guo Wang, Guobing Gan, Haomiao Tang, Jiale Cheng, Ji Qi, Junhui Ji, Lihang Pan, Shuaiqi Duan, Weihan Wang, Yan Wang, Yean Cheng, Zehai He, Zhe Su, Zhen Yang, Ziyang Pan, Aohan Zeng, Baoxu Wang, Bin Chen, Boyan Shi, Changyu Pang, Chenhui Zhang, Da Yin, Fan Yang, Guoqing Chen, Jiazheng Xu, Jiale Zhu, Jiali Chen, Jing Chen, Jinhao Chen, Jinghao Lin, Jinjiang Wang, Junjie Chen, Leqi Lei, Letian Gong, Leyi Pan, Mingdao Liu, Mingde Xu, Mingzhi Zhang, Qinkai Zheng, Sheng Yang, Shi Zhong, Shiyu Huang, Shuyuan Zhao, Siyan Xue, Shangqin Tu, Shengbiao Meng, Tianshu Zhang, Tianwei Luo, Tianxiang Hao, Tianyu Tong, Wenkai Li, Wei Jia, Xiao Liu, Xiaohan Zhang, Xin Lyu, Xinyue Fan, Xuancheng Huang, Yanling Wang, Yadong Xue, Yan- feng Wang, Yanzi Wang, Yifan An, Yifan Du, Yiming Shi, Yiheng Huang, Yilin Niu, Yuan Wang, Yuanchang Yue, Yuchen Li, Yutao Zhang, Yuting Wang, Yu Wang, Yuxuan Zhang, Zhao Xue, Zhenyu Hou, Zhengxiao Du, Zihan Wang, Peng Zhang, Debing Liu, Bin Xu, Juanzi Li, Minlie Huang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. Glm-4.5v and glm-4.1v-thinking: Towards versatile multimodal reasoning with scalable reinforcement learning, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.01006.

[32] Bin Wang, Zhuangcheng Gu, Guang Liang, Chao Xu, Bo Zhang, Botian Shi, and Conghui He. Unimernet: A universal network for real-world mathematical expression recognition, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15254.

[33] Weiyun Wang, Zhangwei Gao, Lixin Gu, Hengjun Pu, Long Cui, Xingguang Wei, Zhaoyang Liu, Linglin Jing, Shenglong Ye, Jie Shao, et al. Internvl3. 5: Advancing open-source multi- modal models in versatility, reasoning, and efficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18265, 2025.

[34] Haoran Wei, Yaofeng Sun, and Yukun Li. Deepseek-ocr: Contexts optical compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.18234, 2025.

16

[35] Aohan Zeng, Xin Lv, Zhenyu Hou, Zhengxiao Du, Qinkai Zheng, Bin Chen, Da Yin, Chendi Ge, Chengxing Xie, Cunxiang Wang, et al. Glm-5: from vibe coding to agentic engineering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15763, 2026.

[36] Xu Zhong, Elaheh ShafieiBavani, and Antonio Jimeno Yepes. Image-based table recognition: data, model, and evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.10683, 2019.

[37] Jinguo Zhu, Weiyun Wang, Zhe Chen, Zhaoyang Liu, Shenglong Ye, Lixin Gu, Hao Tian, Yuchen Duan, Weijie Su, Jie Shao, et al. Internvl3: Exploring advanced training and test-time recipes for open-source multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10479, 2025.

17