arXiv:2608. 06607v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Most document-extraction systems use a single model for all documents.
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 Machine Learning.
arXiv:2609.01575v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Extracting structured fields from hundreds of millions of documents annually remains costly in regulated industries: bespoke OCR cascades cover only a...
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.
The study evaluates machine‑generated text detectors on scientific literature, finding that many detectors perform near perfectly on certain benchmarks due to superficial formatting cues rather than genuine linguistic differences. A logistic regression using 27 superficial features achieved macro‑F1 scores between 0.833 and 0.997, outperforming other detectors on arXiv subsets. The most powerful cue was the PDF extraction artifact—human texts preserve line breaks while generated texts appear as a single block—allowing classification at 0.996 AUC. By introducing format counterfactuals and normalizing formatting, the authors demonstrate that re‑wrapping machine‑written abstracts can flip 20–27% of detector decisions, reducing the generalization gap and improving out‑of‑domain performance.
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.
arXiv:2609.22628v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Every document QA system begins with a choice that is rarely studied on its own: whether to feed the model page images, extracted text, or both. We iso...
arXiv:2607. 29677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprise workflows increasingly rely on agents for \emph{schema-guided extraction}: given a document and a user-defined schema, the agent faithfully follows the schema to produce the correct output with source evidence as grounding metadata.