Overview
Production Readiness
0.5
Novelty Score
0.6
Cost Impact Score
0.6
Citation Count
1
Why It Matters For Business
Combining multiple OCR engines with LLM-based JSON conversion and majority voting can cut extraction errors and improve throughput for invoice automation, reducing manual fixes and speeding up batch processing.
Summary TLDR
LMV-RPA is a production-style pipeline that runs four OCR engines (PaddleOCR, Tesseract, EasyOCR, DocTR), sends each OCR output to two Large Language Models (LLMs) to convert text into JSON, and picks the final structured result by majority voting. On a 100-image invoice test set the authors report 99% extraction accuracy versus a 94% baseline and an average runtime of 121.27s versus 212–218s for UiPath/Automation Anywhere. The study is promising but uses a small invoice-focused dataset and constrained free-tier APIs, so expect more validation before deploying at scale.
Problem Statement
Standard OCR in RPA struggles with ambiguous characters and complex layouts. Single-engine OCR often misreads noisy or varied invoices and manual fixes are expensive. The paper seeks a reliable, automated pipeline that both improves accuracy of extracted fields and outputs structured JSON for downstream RPA tasks.
Main Contribution
LMV-RPA pipeline: multi-OCR (PaddleOCR, Tesseract, EasyOCR, DocTR) + two LLMs to convert each OCR output to JSON, then majority-vote across JSON outputs.
Empirical comparison showing higher extraction accuracy (reported 99% vs 94%) on a 100-image invoice dataset.
Runtime comparison against UiPath and Automation Anywhere showing shorter average run time for LMV-RPA (121.27s) under the paper's test conditions.
Key Findings
LMV-RPA achieved higher extraction accuracy than the baseline.
LMV-RPA ran faster, on average, than two commercial RPA platforms in authors' tests.
Experiments used a small, invoice-focused dataset and free-tier tooling with a 5s added delay.
Results
Accuracy
Average runtime
Who Should Care
What To Try In 7 Days
Run LMV-RPA on a small sample of your invoices (50–200) and compare field-level accuracy to your current tool.
Log per-file runtimes to check throughput under your hardware and adjust polling interval.
Test failure cases: low-quality scans, unusual layouts, and non-invoice documents to map limitations.
Agent Features
Memory
- Short-term file tracking (seen vs new files)
Planning
- Simple event-driven monitoring (detect new files and process)
Tool Use
- Uses multiple OCR engines and LLMs as tools
Frameworks
- Custom RPA pipeline (LMV-RPA)
Is Agentic
true
Architectures
- Pipeline: multi-OCR → 2 LLMs → majority voting
- Continuous directory-watching loop
Collaboration
- Voting across independent OCR+LLM outputs
Optimization Features
System Optimization
- Asynchronous multi-engine processing to shorten end-to-end time
Inference Optimization
- Parallel OCR engines to improve robustness
- Majority voting reduces need for heavier single-model correction
Reproducibility
Code Urls
- Repo
Data Urls
- data set
Code Available
Data Available
Open Source Status
- partial
Risks & Boundaries
Limitations
- Small dataset (100 images) focused on invoices only.
- Authors used free-tier OCR/APIs and added a 5s delay, which may alter runtime behavior.
- No public, standardized benchmark comparisons beyond UiPath/Automation Anywhere runtimes.
- Missing detailed LLM prompts, model sizes, and inference hardware details.
When Not To Use
- For non-invoice or very different document types without retesting.
- When strict, provable privacy constraints forbid sending text to external LLMs.
- If real-time per-document latency below the reported seconds-level is required without further optimization.
Failure Modes
- Majority voting can reinforce a common OCR misread if all engines err the same way.
- LLMs may alter or hallucinate critical field text when converting to JSON.
- Ties or inconsistent JSON structures across engines can break downstream parsing.
Core Entities
Models
- LLaMA 3
- Gemini-1.5-pro
- PaddleOCR
- Tesseract
- EasyOCR
- DocTR
Metrics
- Accuracy
- average runtime (seconds)
Datasets
- 100-image invoice dataset (Kaggle/Roboflow/Kozlowski samples)
- Kaggle invoice-like images
- Roboflow invoice_data
- Kozlowski Samples of Electronic Invoices