Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
one of the most challenging tasks for frontier models is being able to extract thousands of values from extremely dense tables in documents. our new Extract v2.5 agents are able to get 93%-96%+ on long-list extraction, including cells that fall in between pages. in contrast, astra gets ~30% accuracy... show more
13,103 Aufrufe • vor 8 Tagen •via X (Twitter)
7 Kommentare

Long-list extract at 93–96% with source attribution — dense tables still chew up frontier VLMs that bail early.#LlamaIndex #DocAI #Extract

Cells that cross a page break are the real test for document extraction, so it's good to see that case measured. How does accuracy hold up when the table has merged headers?

93 to 96 with a plus. the plus is doing overtime.

attributing every value back to the source is the part I care about, a number I cant trace I cant put in front of a client

93-96% on long-list extraction is strong. what do the remaining 4-7% failures look like - are they random cell misses or systematic issues with specific table structures?

Early stopping is the nasty one on long tables, since 87 of 238 holdings still looks like a complete answer until someone counts rows. Per-value attribution is what makes that check cheap. Does it resolve to the cell or just the page?

$𝟬.𝟬𝟮 per page (per jerryjliu0) makes frontier-grade extraction economically viable, but accuracy benchmarks measure recall, not field-level trust. In agent commerce, a mis-extracted account number or KYC field doesn't average into a score.

