Request access to this dataset

This repository is publicly accessible, but you have to accept the conditions to access its files and content.

This dataset contains real captcha images. Access is granted manually for research and educational purposes (OCR, label-noise and annotation-quality studies). By requesting access you agree to: not use the data or models trained on it to bypass access controls of any live system; not redistribute the images; and cite this dataset in derived work.

Log in or Sign Up to review the conditions and access this dataset content.

captcha2 — text captcha dataset with full label provenance

1999 grayscale-ish JPEG captchas (≈300×50 px) of 6 lowercase alphanumeric symbols from a ~20-symbol alphabet (2345678abcdefgmnpwxy; visually ambiguous symbols such as 0/o, 1/l/i are not used), collected from a public web page in October 2026. The source is intentionally not disclosed.

The interesting part is not the images but how the labels were made and fixed — every label carries its history.

split images label
train 904 verified
validation 100 verified (frozen; all reported metrics use it)
unlabeled 995 none verified; llm_label (Claude) only, so expect ~1 in 5 to be wrong

Columns

column meaning
image the captcha (original JPEG bytes)
filename YYYYmmdd_HHMMSS.jpg, collection time
label final, verified label (empty for unlabeled)
rucaptcha_raw answer returned by a paid human solver (RuCaptcha ImageToTextTask)
rucaptcha_label normalized: Latin lowercased; empty if the answer was Cyrillic
llm_label, llm_confidence label annotated by Claude, used as a second opinion (high/low); weak: 78.3% exact
corrected true if label differs from rucaptcha_label
correction_stage length_fix / llm_review / alphabet_fix — see provenance/corrections.csv

How labels were produced

  1. Paid human labels. Images were sent to RuCaptcha with minLength=maxLength=6. ~7% of the returned answers were typed in Cyrillic look-alikes and were discarded; the remaining answers are the starting labels.
  2. Second opinion. Every image was also labeled by Claude (an LLM reading the image), with a self-reported high/low confidence. These labels are not reliable on their own: only 78.3% of them exactly match the verified labels (95.8% per symbol), versus 88.4% for the paid human labels. They were used only to find disagreements worth a second look.
  3. Corrections: 116 of 1004 human labels changed (11.6%), via 118 logged correction rows (before/after + reason):
    • length_fix — human answer had 5 or 7 symbols;
    • llm_review — human and LLM labels disagreed; resolved by looking at the image;
    • alphabet_fix — symbol outside the alphabet (z→2, v→y, …).
  4. Sanity checks: exact length 6, no duplicates, image exists, flags for runs of 3+ identical symbols (kept — they are legitimate).

Known residual noise: 3 labels still contain q or s, which are outside the core alphabet and are probably errors. They were kept to match the trained model exactly.

Intended use

OCR fine-tuning on small data, label-noise / annotation-quality research, teaching material. Not for circumventing captchas on live systems.

Pipeline code (collection logic, labeling, training, ONNX export): see the GitHub repository captcha2-resolver.

Downloads last month
-

Models trained or fine-tuned on kozhikov/captcha2-dataset