cs.CLApr 29, 2026

Benchmarking Complex Multimodal Document Processing Pipelines: A Unified Evaluation Framework for Enterprise AI

Authors: Saurabh K. SinghSachin Raj

Organizations: Oracle · Independent

Abstract

Most enterprise document AI today is a pipeline. Parse, index, retrieve, generate. Each of those stages has been studied to death on its own -- what's still hard is evaluating the system as a whole. We built EnterpriseDocBench to take a swing at it: parsing fidelity, indexing efficiency, retrieval relevance, and generation groundedness, all on the same corpus. The corpus is built from public, permissively licensed documents across six enterprise domains (five represented in the current pilot). We ran three pipelines through it -- BM25, dense embedding, and a hybrid -- all with the same GPT-5 generator. The headline numbers: hybrid retrieval narrowly beats BM25 (nDCG@5 of 0.92 vs. 0.91), and both beat dense embedding (0.83). Hallucination doesn't grow monotonically with document length -- short documents and very long ones both hallucinate more than medium ones (28.1% and 23.8% vs. 9.2%). Cross-stage correlations are very weak: parsing->retrieval r=0.14, parsing->generation r=0.17, retrieval->generation 0.02. If quality were cascading the way most of us assume, those numbers would be much higher; they aren't. Design caveats are real (parsing fixed, generator shared, automated proxy metrics) and we don't oversell the result. One result that genuinely surprised us: factual accuracy on stated claims is 85.5%, but answer completeness averages 0.40. The system is right when it answers -- it just leaves things out. That gap matters more for real deployments than the headline accuracy number does. We also describe three reference architectures (ColPali, ColQwen2, agentic complexity-based routing) which are not yet integrated end-to-end. Framework, metrics, baselines, and collection scripts will be released open-source on acceptance.

Explore similar work

Jun 2, 2026cs.CL

MM-BizRAG: Rethinking Multimodal Retrieval-Augmented Generation for General Purpose Enterprise Q&A

Recent advances in multimodal retrieval-augmented generation (MM-RAG) have shifted toward minimal parsing, relying on page-level images for producing retriever embeddings and for answer generation. While efficient, this trend often neglects explicit handling of the rich, structured information in complex enterprise documents, instead depending on pre-trained embeddings or vision-language models to implicitly capture such structure. In this work, we take a more direct approach: MM-BizRAG proactively extracts and represents document structure via a document structure-aware split that dynamically routes documents through orientation-specific ingestion pipelines, applying explicit layout-aware parsing for vertically structured documents (e.g., reports) and holistic page-level representations for horizontally structured documents (e.g., slide decks). A unified LLM-driven artifact transformation pipeline with placeholder-based positional alignment preserves natural reading order, while inference-time multimodal assembly decouples retrieval representations from generation context, enabling richer, more grounded answers without any finetuning requirement. Through experiments on a large, heterogeneous enterprise dataset and two public benchmarks (SlideVQA and FinRAGBench-V), MM-BizRAG consistently outperforms state-of-the-art vision-centric baselines by up to 32% points, with especially strong gains on report-style layouts. Furthermore, we introduce FastRAGEval, a single-call LLM Judge metric for fine-grained generative recall that halves RAGChecker's cost while achieving stronger human alignment.
Hanoz Bhathena, Parin Rajesh Jhaveri, Rohan Mittal +7
Jul 31, 2026cs.AI

ExtractBench: A Benchmark for Schema-Guided Enterprise Document Extraction

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. We present ExtractBench, a benchmark for schema-guided extraction and, to our knowledge, the first to score value accuracy, record completeness at scale, grounding, and measured cost together. The evaluation system contains 4,869 pages across 370 enterprise documents, 8 business domains, and 67 document types, with clear tags differentiating their challenge scenarios. The scalable schema and ground-truth curation pipeline combines independent-system agreement for real documents, known values for synthetic lists, and human verification for forms. We report order-insensitive value F1 for value accuracy, plus two grounding metrics for source traceability: word- and page-level F1. Commercial VLMs perform well on short documents but often truncate record lists on long ones, while coding agents retain higher accuracy at much higher cost. LlamaExtract Agentic Plus ranks first on all three metrics, with accuracy comparable to coding agents at a fraction of the cost. Dataset and evaluation code are available on \href{https://huggingface.co/datasets/llamaindex/ExtractBench}{HuggingFace} and \href{https://github.com/run-llama/ExtractBench}{GitHub}.
Boyang Zhang, Adrian Lyjak, Eli Stewart +2
Jul 13, 2026cs.CV

GDP.pdf: Benchmarking Grounded Multimodal Reasoning over Professional PDF Documents

A large share of day-to-day work in professional domains happens inside PDF files: benefits packets, leases, datasheets, clinical guidelines, construction plans. Benchmarks for document AI have generally measured the required capabilities in isolation: OCR, layout analysis, chart reasoning, table QA, document VQA. A high score on any one of them does not necessarily reveal whether a model can answer a realistic question that someone in the field would actually ask about a specific PDF. GDP_pdf is a benchmark built to measure this directly. It consists of question-document pairs authored by working professionals in ten fields, and a candidate question was kept only when at least two frontier multimodal models failed it in a way that mattered: a wrong answer, missed decisive evidence, or a fabricated claim, rather than a superficial difference such as style. Each item comes with a rubric of atomic criteria, so we can report a graded rubric score as well as a strict task-level pass rate, and each item is tagged against a taxonomy of eleven capabilities in three tiers, spanning text extraction and grounding, table and chart comprehension, cross-referencing, spatial reasoning, and abstention on unsupported queries. We report results for seventeen frontier models on the 100-item benchmark: the best model passes only 30.7% of the items and the worst passes 2%. Most errors trace back to a small set of recurring loss patterns: misaligned tables, misread charts, skipped footnotes and exclusions, miscounted floor-plan symbols, scan noise, and amendments that supersede earlier text.
Suhaas Garre, Emily Ritchie, Sushant Mehta +1