Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Document OCR benchmarks are still an open problem Existing document OCR benchmarks are either too narrowly focused on a specific type (e.g. FinTabNet, ChartQA), or on documents that aren’t reflective of real-world tasks (e.g. OmniDocBench, OlmOCR-bench on over academic papers) ParseBench is a step towards solving this problem. *...

21,657 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

We’re open sourcing the first document OCR benchmark for the agentic era, ParseBench. Document parsing is the foundation of every AI agent that works with real-world files. ParseBench is a benchmark that measures parsing quality specifically for agent knowledge work: ✅ It optimizes for semantic correctness (instead of exact similarity) ✅ It has the most comprehensive distribution of real-world enterprise documents It contains ~2,000 human-verified enterprise document pages with 167,000+ test rules across five dimensions that matter most: tables, charts, content faithfulness, semantic formatting, and visual grounding. We benchmarked 14 known document parsers on ParseBench, from frontier/OSS VLMs to specialized parsers to LlamaParse. Here are some of our findings: 💡 Increasing compute budget yields diminishing returns - Gemini/gpt-5-mini/haiku gain 3-5 points from minimal to high thinking, at 4x the cost. 💡 Charts are the most polarizing dimension for evaluation. Most specialized parsers score below 6%, while some VLM-based parsers do a bit better. 💡 VLMs are great at visual understanding but terrible at layout extraction. GPT-5-mini/haiku score below 10% on our visual grounding task, all specialized parsers do much better. 💡 No method crushes all 5 dimensions at once, but LlamaParse achieves the highest overall score at 84.9%, and is the leader in 4 out of the 5 dimensions. This is by far the deepest technical work that we’ve published as a company. I would encourage you to start with our blog and explore our links to Hugging Face to GitHub. All the details are in our full 35-page (!!) ArXiv whitepaper. 🌐: Blog: 📄 Paper: 💻 Code: 📊 Dataset: 🎥 YouTube:

Jerry Liu

107,866 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

There’s been two papers released in the past couple months, one by Google and one by NVIDIA, that argue that ordering the documents retrieved by RAG systems can enhance performance. However, they both give two different strategies on HOW these documents should be ordered 🤔 Both papers agree on two main points: 1️⃣ There’s a fundamental issue in RAG - as more documents are retrieved, more irrelevant context (e.g., hard negatives) are introduced, which leads to confusion for the LLM and eventually degrades the quality of the generated output. This is called an inverted-U performance curve. 2️⃣ Ordering the retrieved documents is a key lever for optimizing RAG performance. Google Cloud researchers proposed ordering results based on relevance scores: The authors in this paper argue for relevance-based reordering, or ordering the retrieved chunks based on their similarity scores, so the most relevant documents are at the beginning and the end of the inputs to counter the “lost in the middle” effect. NVIDIA researchers proposed ordering results based on the original sequence of document chunks: The authors of this paper argue for Order-Preserving Reordering, or Order-Preserve RAG (OP-RAG), to maintain the logically coherent content flow of the document. So they preserved the original order of retrieved document chunks in the source text, instead of ranking them by relevance scores. So which one is right? It probably depends on the specific use case and dataset - relevance-based reordering could perform better in tasks where you need fast access to the most critical information (e.g., fact retrieval, QA systems), while order-preserving RAG might be better where you need to understand the sequential structure of information (e.g., narrative or legal documents). There are still so many uncertainties in AI - we don’t actually know what we’re doing, and it takes awhile to figure out the best strategies for most things! Excited to see more research about this.

Victoria Slocum

15,333 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Today, Box is announcing major new AI agent capabilities to let customers tap into the full value of their unstructured data. First, we’re announcing all new updates to the Box AI Studio to make it even easier to build AI agents that tap into your enterprise content for any job function, business process, or industry specific use case. We are also expanding our set of foundational agents that customers will be able to use to work with their enterprise content, including new features like search and research on unstructured data. Next, we’re announcing Box Extract to enable customers to use AI agents seamlessly for complex data extraction from any type of document or content. This makes it easier than ever to pull out data from contracts, invoices, research data, marketing assets, medical charts, and more. Finally, we’re introducing Box Automate, a new workflow automation solution within Box that lets you deploy AI agents across enterprise content-centric workflows. With Box Automate, you can design your business process in a simple drag and drop builder and then drop in AI agents at any step in the process. This ensures agents execute tasks at the right steps in a workflow every time. Best of all, our AI agents and workflow tools are designed to work across any system our customers work within, whether it’s leveraging pre-built integrations, Box APIs, or the new Box MCP Server. Ultimately, all of these capabilities come together to transform how companies can work with their enterprise content. Software has historically only been good at automating work that deals with structured data, which is why ERP, CRM, and HR systems have been mainstays of enterprise software for so long. The data in these systems fits neatly into a database, and the workflows are very ripe for automation. But it turns out most of the work in the world deals with unstructured data. It’s ideating through research documents, working with a client on contracts, reviewing details for a new product launch, looking at a patient’s healthcare record to make a diagnosis, working through due diligence documents for an M&A deal, and so on. For the first time ever, we can begin to bring all new insights and automation to this work with AI agents. At Box, we’re incredibly excited to be on this journey to help customers transform how they work with their most important data.

Aaron Levie

91,863 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

🚀New Amazon Q Developer agent for software development is available to customers: This agent is based on a new agent architecture that has exciting results coming from the SWE-bench scores (on the full and verified benchmarks) representing AI models’ ability to resolve real-world coding problems. Interesting aspect of Q Agent is that with these newest updates, Q drove nearly 50% more successful coding tasks completed. What makes Q Dev Agent remarkable? The agent architecture is not just about using the best LLMs (which we do), but also giving the agent the ability to constantly explore multiple paths to find the best way to resolve a particular problem (and back tracking when it has reached dead end like a developer would do). Needless to say, we are just getting started on the developer agent and we are constantly pushing to advance our AI capabilities while maintaining quality, security, privacy, and reliability to keep Amazon Q Developer an innovative and trusted option available to our customers using agents for software development. We highlighted the results of our first SWE-bench submission of Amazon Q Developer back in June blog post; with these updates, our new agent resolves 51% more coding tasks than its previous iteration on the SWE-bench verified dataset, and 43% more on the full dataset. That’s the difference a few months make, and I can’t wait to share what our teams will deliver at re:Invent this December. Here's a quick demo showcasing our new Agent in action:

Swami Sivasubramanian

28,946 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Researchers built a new RAG approach that: - does not need a vector DB. - does not embed data. - involves no chunking. - performs no similarity search. And it hit 98.7% accuracy on a financial benchmark (SOTA). Here's the core problem with RAG that this new approach solves: Traditional RAG chunks documents, embeds them into vectors, and retrieves based on semantic similarity. But similarity ≠ relevance. When you ask "What were the debt trends in 2023?", a vector search returns chunks that look similar. But the actual answer might be buried in some Appendix, referenced on some page, in a section that shares zero semantic overlap with your query. Traditional RAG would likely never find it. PageIndex (open-source) solves this. Instead of chunking and embedding, PageIndex builds a hierarchical tree structure from your documents, like an intelligent table of contents. Then it uses reasoning to traverse that tree. For instance, the model doesn't ask: "What text looks similar to this query?" Instead, it asks: "Based on this document's structure, where would a human expert look for this answer?" That's a fundamentally different approach with: - No arbitrary chunking that breaks context. - No vector DB infrastructure to maintain. - Traceable retrieval to see exactly why it chose a specific section. - The ability to see in-document references ("see Table 5.3") the way a human would. But here's the deeper issue that it solves. Vector search treats every query as independent. But documents have structure and logic, like sections that reference other sections and context that builds across pages. PageIndex respects that structure instead of flattening it into embeddings. Do note that this approach may not make sense in every use case since traditional vector search is still fast, simple, and works well for many applications. But for professional documents that require domain expertise and multi-step reasoning, this tree-based, reasoning-first approach shines. For instance, PageIndex achieved 98.7% accuracy on FinanceBench, significantly outperforming traditional vector-based RAG systems on complex financial document analysis. Everything is fully open-source, so you can see the full implementation in GitHub and try it yourself. I have shared the GitHub repo in the replies!

Avi Chawla

972,347 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Today, we’re pushing a major update to Edison Analysis, our data analysis agent, which is tuned for scientific research and SOTA across data analysis benchmarks. In contrast to Kosmos, which runs for 6-12 hours and produces tens of thousands of lines of code, Edison Analysis runs for seconds to minutes and is best for specific, well-defined computational tasks. It is available both on our platform under the Analysis tab, and via API, and costs only one credit per run, so it is available to users on both free and paid tiers. Edison Analysis is a modified version of the data analysis agent Kosmos uses in its trajectories. Try it out! One of the most important improvements over our previous data analysis agents has been the addition of a specialized data retrieval tool. Edison Analysis can either use this tool to access data, or can pull data down directly via API. To evaluate this tool, we ranked the most commonly used public data repositories across recent papers from BioRxiv, and created a new benchmark that measures the ability of a language agent system to retrieve raw data from those sources. Edison Analysis gets 71% on this benchmark, and we’ll be working to increase this over time. You can read more about our benchmarks in the our blog post, link below. Some features worth highlighting: 1. Edison Analysis produces a report on the analysis it runs, along with a Jupyter notebook that you can download to reproduce the analysis yourself. Every figure it produces is linked back to the specific lines of code used to produce the figure, to make it easy to reproduce. 2. It works well with both Python and R. 3. One of the best uses for Edison Analysis is to use it to retrieve datasets that you can then analyze with Kosmos. We have a bunch of major improvements to Edison Analysis coming in the next few months that we’re excited to share. In the meantime, congratulations to the team, especially Ludovico Mitchener, Jon Laurent, Conor Igoe , Alex Andonian, and many more.

Sam Rodriques

61,860 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Introducing ALE-Bench, ALE-Agent! Towards Automating Long-Horizon Algorithm Engineering for Hard Optimization Problems Blog: Paper: ALE-Bench is a coding benchmark primarily focused on hard optimization (NP-hard) problems. We developed this benchmark with AtCoder Inc., a leading coding contest platform company. What makes ALE-Bench unique is its focus on hard optimization problems that demand long-horizon and creative reasoning. It’s open-ended, in the sense that true optima are out of reach (NP-hard) and scores can continuously improve. We believe this benchmark has the potential to become one of the key benchmarks for reasoning and coding in the next generation. ALE-Agent is our end-to-end agent that we specifically designed for this challenging domain. In fact, our ALE-Agent has already built an impressive track record in the wild! In May 2025, our agent participated in a live AtCoder Heuristic Competition (AHC), alongside 1,000 other participants in real-time. AHC is considered to be one of the most challenging coding competitions in this domain. Our ALE-Agent achieved an impressive ranking of 21st out of 1,000 human participants in the competition (top 2%), marking a turning point for AI discovery of solutions to hard optimization problems with a wide spectrum of important real world applications such as logistics, routing, packing, factory production planning, power-grid balancing. We look forward to applying this technology to real industrial optimization opportunities. Building on the insights from this study, Sakana AI will continue to tackle the challenge of developing AI with even greater algorithm engineering capabilities. ALE-Bench Dataset: ALE-Bench Code: This research was conducted in collaboration with AtCoder Inc. (AtCoder). We are deeply grateful for their outstanding expertise and contributions in optimization and algorithms, which were invaluable in providing data, analyzing results, and enabling our AI agent’s participation in their contests.

Sakana AI

237,195 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

PhD Students – How to automatically identify 90% of the issues in your research paper before you submit it to a journal? This is possible through manual or automated paper review. First, let’s understand the following. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰? Paper review is a process in which subject matter experts evaluate your paper based on the following criteria: 1. Significance – Is this research important? 2. Novelty – Is this research new? 3. Methodology – Is this research carried out in the correct way? 4. Verifiability – Can other researchers verify this research? 5. Presentation – Is the research presented in the right way? 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧? ➟ Identify the critical issues in your paper ➟ Fix those issues to increase the chances of your paper acceptance 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 “𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰” 𝐨𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫? Paperpal just launched an amazing feature – AI Review. Using this feature, you can get instant self-feedback. This feature will help you in the following ways. ➝ Check for gaps in your logic ➝ Get feedback on the structure and flow of your writing ➝ Review your research questions ➝ Identify opportunities to strengthen your paper ➝ Increase the chances of your paper acceptance Here is a step-by-step process for using AI Review feature. Step 1: Go to and login. Step 2: Open an existing document or make a new document Step 3: Go to the right-side bar and click on checks | AI Review. Step 4: For this feature to work there should be more than 150 words. Step 5: Copy and paste your paper. Step 6: Now go to the right side and check the prompts Step 7: With these prompts, you will evaluate your paper. Step 8: You will find various prompts e.g., suggest writing feedback, check flow and structure etc. Step 9: You can select a prompt from the existing prompts or write your custom prompt and execute Step 10: Paperpal will generate feedback as per the prompt. Step 11: Read through the feedback and save it for further use. Use other specific prompts for tailored feedback. Step 12: This way you can evaluate various aspects of your paper yourself. This is a very customized and efficient way of automatically reviewing your paper. You can also go one step further to work on the feedback and improve your paper based on suggestions. Please note that AI Review feature does not replace human or expert reviewers in any way. This feature only aims to provide you with quick self-feedback. Try the AI Review feature of Paperpal. Paperpal link:

Faheem Ullah

15,270 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce