arXiv:2607. 29058v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Professional-document review is a constraint-checking problem in which decisions depend on relations among text, geometry, pages, and document revisions.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
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.
arXiv:2606. 27383v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as research assistants, yet it remains unclear whether they can calibrate research takeaways to the strength and scope of the supporting evidence.
The paper evaluates eleven vision‑language models (VLMs) for extracting structured fields from business documents, focusing on robustness, cost, and governance rather than just accuracy. Using a held‑out set of 750 synthetic checks, the study finds that fine‑tuning open‑source VLMs on 3,000 samples yields an F1 score above 0.98, surpassing all zero‑shot commercial systems, while GPT‑5 tops the commercial group and Claude Sonnet 4.5 fails on date extraction. The authors also present a practitioner‑oriented selection framework that maps task profiles—such as quality, latency, governance, and volume—to recommended approaches via filtering and total‑cost minimization, demonstrated on a mid‑volume document‑extraction scenario.
Transforming table-form documents into machine-processable records requires recovering not only their visible content but also the multilevel structure that organizes it. However, existing benchmarks evaluate either holistic document outputs or conventional table grids, and their aggregate scores provide little insight into where structural failures occur.
arXiv:2606. 29399v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reviewing nuclear regulatory documents requires multi-hop reasoning across tens of thousands of pages, where judgments depend on evidence assembled across multiple chapters.
arXiv:2607. 09328v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Answering complex questions over long documents frequently requires integrating evidence that the source itself disperses naturally across distant passages.