DocSplit: A Comprehensive Benchmark Dataset and Evaluation Approach for Document Packet Recognition and Splitting
Organizations: Amazon Web Services
Abstract
Document understanding in real-world applications often requires processing heterogeneous, multi-page document packets containing multiple documents stitched together. Despite recent advances in visual document understanding, the fundamental task of document packet splitting, which involves separating a document packet into individual units, remains largely unaddressed. We present the first comprehensive benchmark dataset, DocSplit, along with novel evaluation metrics for assessing the document packet splitting capabilities of large language models. DocSplit comprises five datasets of varying complexity, covering diverse document types, layouts, and multimodal settings. We formalize the DocSplit task, which requires models to identify document boundaries, classify document types, and maintain correct page ordering within a document packet. The benchmark addresses real-world challenges, including out-of-order pages, interleaved documents, and documents lacking clear demarcations. We conduct extensive experiments evaluating multimodal LLMs on our datasets, revealing significant performance gaps in current models' ability to handle complex document splitting tasks. The DocSplit benchmark datasets and proposed novel evaluation metrics provide a systematic framework for advancing document understanding capabilities essential for legal, financial, healthcare, and other document-intensive domains. We release the datasets to facilitate future research in document packet processing.
Figures & tables
| Proposed | Classical | ||||||
| Benchmark | Model | Clustering | Ordering | Packet | Page | Page+Split | Page+Split+Order |
| DocSplit-Mono-Seq | Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0.8433 | 0.9950 | 0.9191 | 0.7919 | 0.7326 | 0.7316 |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 0.8542 | 0.9960 | 0.9251 | 0.8239 | 0.7656 | 0.7656 | |
| DeepSeek V3.1 | 0.8473 | 0.9953 | 0.9213 | 0.8242 | 0.6831 | 0.6821 | |
| Gemma 3 27B | 0.6093 | 0.9940 | 0.8016 | 0.7257 | 0.3134 | 0.3134 | |
| Qwen 3 VL 235B | 0.8831 | 0.9960 | 0.9395 | 0.8418 | 0.8036 | 0.8026 | |
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Test Case | Description |
| Perfect | All predictions match ground truth |
| Misclassification Only | Correct grouping and ordering, but class labels swapped |
| Wrong Grouping Only | Correct classification and ordering, but group IDs swapped |
| Wrong Ordering Only | Correct classification and grouping, but page order scrambled |
| Split Groups | One document split into two groups (over-segmentation) |
| Merged Groups | Two documents merged into one group (under-segmentation) |
| Test Case | V-measure | RI | |||
| Perfect | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
| Misclassification Only | 0.7974 | 0.5949 | 0.5897 | 0.6000 | 1.0000 |
| Wrong Grouping Only | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
| Wrong Ordering Only | 0.1667 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | |
| Split Groups | 0.8428 | 0.6856 | 0.6713 | 0.7000 | 1.0000 |
| Merged Groups | 0.6000 | 0.2000 | 0.0000 | 0.4000 | 1.0000 |
| Test Case | Page | Page+Split | Page+Split+Order |
| Perfect | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| Misclassification Only | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Wrong Grouping Only | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| Wrong Ordering Only | 100.00% | 100.00% | 0.00% |
| Split Groups | 100.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Merged Groups | 100.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Test Case | Classical | Proposed |
| Misclassification | All = 0% (complete failure) | = 0.59, = 0.80 |
| Split Groups | Page+Split = 0% | = 0.69, = 0.84 |
| Merged Groups | Page+Split = 0% | = 0.20, V-measure = 0 |
| Reverse Order | Page+Split+Order = 0% | = (captures direction) |
| Partial Misclass | Page+Split = 50% | = 0.89 (localized penalty) |
| Dataset | Size | Data Source | Domain | Task | OCR | Layout |
| IIT-CDIP Lewis et al. (2006) | 35.5M | UCSF-IDL | Industry | P | ✗ | ✗ |
| RVL-CDIP Harley et al. (2015a) | 400K | UCSF-IDL | Industry | DC | ✗ | ✗ |
| RVL-CDIP-N Larson et al. (2022) | 1K | Doc Cloud | Industry | DC | ✗ | ✗ |
| TAB Mungmeeprued et al. (2022) | 44.8K | UCSF-IDL | Industry | DC | ✗ | ✗ |
| FUNSD Jaume et al. (2019) | 199 | UCSF-IDL | Industry | KIE | ✓ | ✗ |
| SP-DocVQA Mathew et al. (2020) | 12K | UCSF-IDL | Industry | QA | ✓ | ✗ |
| Dataset Type | Size | Split | Total | Pages/ | Subdocs/ | Types/ | Pages/ |
| Packets | Packet | Packet | Packet | Subdoc | |||
| PolySeq | Large | Test | 500 | 69.86 | 12.31 | 7.97 | 5.67 |
| Train | 1864 | 127.05 | 16.04 | 8.77 | 7.92 | ||
| Validation | 199 | 79.51 | 11.10 | 7.50 | 7.16 | ||
| Small | Test | 500 | 14.66 | 4.05 | 3.66 | 3.62 | |
| Train | 7840 | 14.89 | 4.31 | 3.85 | 3.46 |
| Size | Split | Budget | Form | Handwritten | Invoice | Language | Letter | Memo | News Article | Questionnaire | Resume | Sci. Pub. | Spec. | |
| DocSplit-Poly-Seq | ||||||||||||||
| Large | Test | 323 | 288 | 330 | 322 | 314 | 292 | 301 | 322 | 281 | 294 | 287 | 341 | 292 |
| Train | 1240 | 1225 | 1361 | 1342 | 1196 | 1224 | 1232 | 1215 | 1246 | 1265 | 1236 | 1359 | 1212 | |
| Validation | 135 | 98 | 118 | 135 | 109 | 100 | 112 | 113 | 111 | 98 | 119 | 149 | 95 | |
| Small | Test | 129 | 139 | 136 | 138 | 135 | 130 | 123 | 135 | 138 | 136 | 160 | 167 | 165 |
| Train | 2346 | 2246 | 2045 | 2207 | 2344 | 2683 | 2316 | 2317 | 2393 | 2322 | 2371 | 2231 | 2334 | |
Document Image Understanding
Document image understanding turns page images into recognized text, layout, structured data, and answers grounded in visual evidence.
See all 148 papers