Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

READoc: A Unified Benchmark for Realistic Document Structured Extraction

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.05137 v3 pith:TR6HWDPS submitted 2024-09-08 cs.CL cs.CV

classification cs.CLcs.CV
keywords evaluationreadocunifiedbenchmarkrealisticstructureddocumentdocuments
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Document Structured Extraction (DSE) aims to extract structured content from raw documents. Despite the emergence of numerous DSE systems, their unified evaluation remains inadequate, significantly hindering the field's advancement. This problem is largely attributed to existing benchmark paradigms, which exhibit fragmented and localized characteristics. To address these limitations and offer a thorough evaluation of DSE systems, we introduce a novel benchmark named READoc, which defines DSE as a realistic task of converting unstructured PDFs into semantically rich Markdown. The READoc dataset is derived from 3,576 diverse and real-world documents from arXiv, GitHub, and Zenodo. In addition, we develop a DSE Evaluation S$^3$uite comprising Standardization, Segmentation and Scoring modules, to conduct a unified evaluation of state-of-the-art DSE approaches. By evaluating a range of pipeline tools, expert visual models, and general VLMs, we identify the gap between current work and the unified, realistic DSE objective for the first time. We aspire that READoc will catalyze future research in DSE, fostering more comprehensive and practical solutions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Do VLMs Read or Rewrite? On Transcription Faithfulness in Vision-Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    General-purpose VLMs systematically rewrite perturbed words back to the original — up to 4.5 WER points on English — with rewriting tied to representation similarity and word length.

Pith tools