Falcon OCR is a 300M parameter early-fusion vision-language model for document OCR. Given an image, it can produce plain text, LaTeX for formulas, or HTML for tables, depending on the requested output format.
Most OCR VLM systems are built as a pipeline with a vision encoder feeding a separate text decoder, plus additional task-specific glue. Falcon OCR takes a different approach: a single Transformer processes image patches and text tokens in a shared parameter space from the first layer, using a hybrid attention mask where image tokens attend bidirectionally and text tokens decode causally conditioned on the image.
We built it this way for two practical reasons. First, it keeps the interface simple: one backbone, one decoding path, and task switching through prompts rather than a growing set of modules. Second, a 0.3B model has a lower latency and cost footprint than 0.9B-class OCR VLMs, and in our vLLM-based serving setup this translates into higher throughput, often 2–3× faster depending on sequence lengths and batch configuration. To our knowledge, this is one of the first attempts to apply this early-fusion single-stack recipe directly to competitive document OCR at this scale.
category: one of plain, text, table, formula, caption, footnote, list-item, page-footer, page-header, section-header, title
Returns: list[str], one extracted string per image
Layout OCR (Two-Stage Pipeline)
For sparse documents, running OCR on the whole image can work well. For dense documents with heterogeneous regions (multi-column layouts, interleaved tables and formulas, small captions), we provide an optional two-stage pipeline:
A layout detector finds regions on the page.
Falcon OCR runs independently on each crop with a category-specific prompt.
We use PP-DocLayoutV3 as the layout detector.
python
1results = model.generate_with_layout(image)2for det in results[0]:3print(f"[{det['category']}] {det['text'][:100]}...")
The layout model is loaded lazily on the first generate_with_layout() call and runs on the same GPU as the OCR model.
Returns: list[list[dict]], one list per image, in reading order:
python
1{2"category":"text",# layout category3"bbox":[x1, y1, x2, y2],# in original image pixels4"score":0.93,# detection confidence5"text":"..."# extracted text6}
Complex multi-column documents, academic papers, reports, dense pages like newspapers
model.generate_with_layout(image)
Benchmark Results
olmOCR Benchmark
Category-wise performance comparison of FalconOCR against state-of-the-art OCR models. We report accuracy (%) across all category splits.
Model
Average
ArXiv Math
Base
Hdr/Ftr
TinyTxt
MultCol
OldScan
OldMath
Tables
Mistral OCR 3
81.7
85.4
99.9
93.8
88.9
82.1
48.8
68.3
86.1
Chandra
82.0
81.4
99.8
88.8
91.9
82.9
49.2
73.6
88.2
Gemini 3 Pro
80.2
70.6
99.8
84.0
90.3
79.2
47.5
84.9
84.9
PaddleOCR VL 1.5
79.3
85.4
98.8
96.9
80.8
82.6
39.2
66.4
84.1
PaddleOCR VL
79.2
85.4
98.6
96.9
80.8
82.5
38.8
66.4
83.9
DeepSeek OCR v2
78.8
81.9
99.8
95.6
88.7
83.6
33.7
68.8
78.1
Gemini 3 Flash
77.5
66.5
99.8
83.8
88.2
73.7
46.0
85.8
75.9
GPT 5.2
69.8
61.0
99.8
75.6
62.2
70.2
34.6
75.8
79.0
FalconOCR
80.3
80.5
99.5
94.0
78.5
87.1
43.5
69.2
90.3
OmniDocBench
Performance comparison on full-page document parsing. Overall↑ aggregates the three sub-metrics. Edit↓ measures text edit distance (lower is better). CDM↑ evaluates formula recognition accuracy. TEDS↑ measures table structure similarity.
Model
Overall↑
Edit↓
CDM↑
TEDS↑
PaddleOCR VL 1.5
94.37
0.025
94.4
91.1
PaddleOCR VL
91.76
0.024
91.7
85.9
Chandra
88.97
0.046
88.1
89.5
DeepSeek OCR v2
87.66
0.037
89.2
77.5
GPT 5.2
86.56
0.061
88.0
77.7
Mistral OCR 3
85.20
0.053
84.3
76.1
FalconOCR
88.64
0.055
86.8
84.6
Results Analysis
First, a compact model can be competitive when the interface is simple and the training signal is targeted. On olmOCR, Falcon OCR performs strongly on multi-column documents and tables, and is competitive overall against substantially larger systems. Second, evaluation on full-page parsing is sensitive to matching and representation details. On OmniDocBench, the table and formula metrics depend not only on recognition quality but also on how predicted elements are matched to ground truth and how output structure is normalized.
More broadly, these results suggest that an early-fusion single-stack Transformer can be a viable alternative to the common "vision encoder plus text decoder" recipe for OCR. We do not view this as a finished answer, but as a promising direction: one early-fusion backbone, a shared parameter space between text and images, a single decoding interface, and better data and training signals, rather than increasingly complex pipelines. To our knowledge, this is among the first demonstrations that this early-fusion recipe can reach competitive document OCR accuracy at this scale, and we hope it encourages further work in this direction.
Serving Throughput
Measured on a single A100-80GB GPU with vLLM, processing document images from olmOCR-Bench under high concurrency for optimal vLLM utilization.
Layout + OCR — The full end-to-end pipeline: layout detection finds regions on each page, crops them, and vLLM runs OCR on every crop. This represents the real-world serving throughput, inclusive of both layout detection and OCR time.
Mode
tok/s
img/s
Description
Layout + OCR
5,825
2.9
Full pipeline: layout detection → crop → per-region OCR
At 0.3B parameters, Falcon OCR is roughly 3× smaller than 0.9B-class OCR VLMs (e.g., PaddleOCR VL), which translates directly into higher serving throughput at competitive accuracy.
Limitations
Old scans and tiny text: Heavily degraded scans and very small glyphs remain challenging. These cases often require higher effective resolution and better coverage in the training mixture.
Non-unique table representations: Visually identical tables can be encoded in structurally different HTML forms, which can affect tree-based metrics.
Formula matching sensitivity: LaTeX and Unicode conventions can be penalized differently depending on the benchmark normalization and matching pipeline.
Examples
Click each section below to expand.
Handwriting and Real World Images
Handwriting and real world OCR examples
Tables
Table OCR examples
Formulas
Formula OCR examples
Complex Layout
Complex layout OCR examples
vLLM Server
We also provide a Docker-based vLLM-backed inference server capable of serving approximately 6,000 tokens per second.
Single Docker image with two services:
Service
Default Port
Description
vLLM
8000
Falcon-OCR vision-language model (OpenAI-compatible API)
The easiest way to send files. Supports images and multi-page PDFs:
bash
1# Single image2curl -X POST http://localhost:5002/falconocr/upload \3 -F "files=@photo.jpg;type=image/jpeg"4# PDF document5curl -X POST http://localhost:5002/falconocr/upload \6 -F "files=@document.pdf;type=application/pdf"
Parse (full pipeline: layout + OCR)
Send base64-encoded images for layout detection, cropping, and OCR:
Docker --gpus "device=3,4" makes the container see GPUs as local indices 0,1.
EXPOSED_GPU_IDS=3,4 allows you to reference host GPU IDs (VLLM_GPU=3, PIPELINE_GPU=4);
the entrypoint remaps them to the correct container-local indices.
Citation
If you use Falcon OCR, please cite:
bibtex
1@misc{falconocr2026,
2 title = {Falcon OCR},
3 author = {TII Falcon Vision Team},
4 year = {2026},
5 howpublished = {arXiv preprint, link forthcoming},
6 note = {Code: https://github.com/tiiuae/Falcon-Perception},
7}