The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
WeVisDoc is a two‑stage data‑centric framework designed to improve end‑to‑end document parsing. Stage I expands coverage by adding heterogeneous data and applying structure‑preserving degradation synthesis, while Stage II evaluates residual errors with a held‑out probe and uses those diagnostics to target data construction and token budget reallocation. The resulting WeVisDoc‑4B model achieves an overall score of 95.38 on OmniDocBench v1.6 and outperforms competing parsers across all evaluated settings, with Stage II delivering notable gains on degraded tracks.
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:2609.09696v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models are increasingly proposed as automated auditors of document quality, yet their reliability as detectors of planted errors is poor...
arXiv:2609.00470v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds large language models in external corpora, but implicit trust in retrieved documents creates a critical at...
TriShieldRAG introduces a three‑layered defense for Retrieval‑Augmented Generation: an Ingest Guard that screens documents, a Retrieval Scorer that re‑ranks based on trust, and a Cross‑LLM Consensus that validates evidence across three models. Against the original PoisonedRAG attack on the 2.68M‑passage Natural Questions corpus, the framework reduces attack success from about 79% to 1%. However, adaptive attacks that only alter document formatting can bypass the Ingest Guard and still achieve high success rates, revealing limits of layered defenses that rely on the same retrieved evidence.
The paper investigates the gap between retrieval and reading in document vision‑language models, showing that even when the correct page is retrieved, the model often fails to use the text on that page. By comparing answers derived from page images alone versus images plus extracted OCR text, the authors demonstrate that adding OCR text can improve strict accuracy by 13 to 16 points on their FoveDoc‑Bench benchmark. The study also reveals that OCR benefits textual evidence but not charts or figures, and that its advantage diminishes as retrieval quality worsens.