AtomCite is an agentic framework that verifies and corrects page‑level citations in multi‑page documents by parsing answers into claims, checking each claim against the cited page image, and applying a deterministic repair policy. The authors introduce DocCite, the first benchmark for this task, built on MP‑DocVQA and DUDE, containing 928 injected instances and 1,909 verified natural errors. Across Gemini, Claude, and GPT models, AtomCite achieves about 93% verification accuracy and improves citation precision from 34% to 87‑90%, while also enhancing hallucination detection in open‑source models.
By Chen Qian, Yimeng Wang, Yu Chen, Lingfei Wu, Andreas Stathopoulos
arXiv:2607. 01245v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce Office Comprehension Bench (OCB), the first public benchmark to jointly evaluate LLM systems on Word, Excel, and PowerPoint comprehension over native file formats (.
By Firoz Shaik, Mateus Pican\c{c}o Lima Gomes, Tanvir Aumi, Jingci Wang, Milos Milunovic, Filip Basara, Ivana Jovanovic, Vishwas Suryanarayanan, Neha Nandan Kenkare, Weiyao Xie, Zhipeng Han, Zheng Zhang, Waleed Shahid, Jay Rathi, Russell Scherer, Thong Q. Nguyen, Michael Bentley, Tamara Stankovic, Rasika Chakravarthy, Vishal Chowdhary
EviScope is a new paired counterfactual benchmark that evaluates grounded language models by fixing the question while manipulating evidence—adding, removing, distracting, or contradicting it. The v1.1 dataset includes 40 four‑condition quartets with repaired counterfactual claims and span‑level support labels for automated assessment. Experiments on Qwen2.5‑7B, Llama 3.1 8B, and Gemini 3.5 Flash show that paired metrics reveal grounding behaviors hidden by simple answer accuracy, such as unsupported answers, conflict blindness, and incorrect non‑answer actions.
By Suryadeep Singh Deswal
arXiv:2608. 16643v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation.
By Yifan Zhang, Rahmatollah Beheshti
arXiv:2606. 01393v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Document parsing and recognition are fundamental capabilities for vision-language models (VLMs) and document processing systems.
By Minglai Yang, Xinyan Velocity Yu, Pengyuan Li, Xinyu Guo, Zhenting Qi, Konwoo Kim, Longtian Ye, Xiaolong Luo, Jinhe Bi, Henry Zhang, Haris Riaz, Xuan Zhang, Yunze Xiao, Bangya Liu, Tom Tang, Yunfei Zhao, Qunshu Lin, Zihan Wang, Minghao Liu, Michael Lingzhi Li, Yilun Du, Jesse Thomason, Rogerio Feris, Alex Pentland, Zexue He
TRACE is a system designed to bridge the grounding contract gap in LitTraceQA by combining target-aware retrieval, independent typed evidence localization, multimodal table extraction, and schema-driven table construction. It indexes 27,487 papers using multiple representations while preserving question targets, predicts observation units for tables, and assembles rows with evaluator-compatible key normalization. On the official test set, TRACE achieves a 0.760613 overall score, with high paper F1, evidence F1, and multiple-choice accuracy, though table-row and macro cell performance remain lower.
By Sachin Gupta, Divya Godara
arXiv:2607. 19396v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Document-based LLM systems often flatten a PDF before guardrails inspect it.
By Pukaphol Thienpreecha ("Volk")
arXiv:2609.37755v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Purpose: Most Greek papyri remain unpublished and undigitised; a handwritten text recognition (HTR) pipeline that transcribes them automatically would...
By Anton Repushko, Elena Chepel
The paper introduces a joint fact‑verification score that evaluates both answers and the evidence submitted with them. On the FEVEROUS dataset, replacing the DCUF evidence with UnifEE evidence improves the strict score by about 9.6 percentage points, while answer accuracy rises only 1.96 points. The study also shows that increasing context length for large language models yields modest evidence‑gain improvements, and that detailed answer‑evidence analyses uncover patterns missed by aggregate metrics.
By Han Chen, Yingrui Li
Grounded language-model systems are often evaluated by final answer accuracy, yet a correct answer can be unsupported, drawn from the wrong source, or produced when evidence is insufficient or contrad...
MedFabric is a new benchmark for detecting word‑level medical fabrications, comprising 646 fabricated statements each paired with a ground‑truth passage that shares the same LLM authorship and nearly identical wording. The study shows that current detectors perform poorly—expert clinicians achieve only 53.3% macro‑F1 and no detector family surpasses 60% without gold evidence—highlighting that detection hinges on evidence correctness rather than subtlety of fabrication. The authors demonstrate that a retrieval‑confidence gate can substantially improve performance, raising macro‑F1 from 61% to 74%.
By Tung Sum Thomas Kwok, Qian Qian, Xiaofeng Lin, Dongxu Zhang, Jun Han, Zhichao Yang, Davin Hill, Tamer Soliman, Sanjit Singh Batra, Robert Tillman, Guang Cheng
arXiv:2607. 17108v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In multi-hop RAG evaluation, a top-k answer score can hide two different failures: the retrieval window may drop part of the support chain, or it may contain support in a form the adapted reader does not use well.
By Junchi Liao, Jiawen Deng, Fuji Ren