How Do Document Parsers Break? Auditing Structural Vulnerability in Document Intelligence

Document parsing and recognition are fundamental capabilities for vision-language models (VLMs) and document processing systems. However, existing Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and document parsing benchmarks are increasingly limited in coverage and difficulty: many focus on common document genres or uniformly sampled pages where modern parsers already perform strongly, while offering limited annotation for expert-domain structures such as chemical formula, music notation, complex tables, and cross-page layouts. We introduce Dr. DocBench, a difficulty-aware benchmark for expert-level document parsing. Built from a large-scale multilingual book corpus, Dr. DocBench spans 52 BISAC subject domains and selects challenging documents through parser-failure-based sampling, targeting cases where multiple state-of-the-art systems struggle. It contains 4,514 annotated pages from long documents averaging around 100 pages, with 65k high-quality page- and block-level annotations for layout, reading order, hierarchical relations, and domain-specific visual contents. Evaluations of pipeline-based parsers and general-purpose VLMs show that strong performance on existing benchmarks does not transfer to our expert-level document parsing. Our analysis reveals substantial failures across subjects, content types, and structural attributes, highlighting Dr. DocBench as a comprehensive testbed for diagnosing and advancing document intelligence.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) parse documents end-to-end but frequently break down on layouts unlike those seen in training. We attribute this to a two-hop bottleneck: before the decoder can extract content (Hop 2), it must first classify and localize the enclosing layout entity (Hop 1), and when the first hop fails the second collapses into omissions, malformed structure, or autoregressive repetition. We pre-resolve Hop 1 outside the decoder by running a lightweight RT-DETR detector, serializing its outputs in the parser's native DocTags vocabulary, and injecting them into the prompt alongside the full page image. Unlike analyze-then-parse approaches that crop the page, or prior prompt-level priors written in plain text, our prior shares the decoder's generation space and leaves the global image in view as a fallback when detections are noisy. On a 10k-page structural out-of-distribution benchmark, markdown F1 rises from $0.37$ to $0.92$; on the Chinese subset of OmniDocBench, table TEDS rises from $0.01$ to $0.36$; and on the 26k-page ViDoRe V3 benchmark, infinite-loop decoding failures drop across every industrial domain tested. These gains cost $15\%$ wall-clock latency and a median of $74$ prompt tokens, with no architectural change to the base VLM. An attention-level analysis further reveals a bimodal phase shift in which the decoder attends to injected layout tokens when emitting structure and to image patches when emitting content, consistent with the two-hop bottleneck being alleviated. Model weights will be released to support reproducibility.

Document parsing converts document images into structured content and requires reliable performance across diverse layouts and acquisition conditions. Yet training corpora are biased toward common document types and clean digital pages, while expanding coverage alone does not specify how to address a parser's remaining weaknesses. We present WeVisDoc, a two-stage data-centric framework for robust end-to-end document parsing. Stage I broadens semantic, structural, and appearance coverage through heterogeneous data and structure-preserving degradation synthesis. Stage II uses a held-out probe to measure the Stage I parser's residual errors within fixed visual-structural clusters. These diagnostics guide targeted data construction and reallocation of the target-token budget. WeVisDoc-4B achieves an Overall score of 95.38 on OmniDocBench v1.6 and a mean Overall score of 75.54 across the three PureDocBench tracks, ranking first among the compared end-to-end parsers in all four settings. Compared with Stage I, Stage II improves Overall scores for the 2B and 4B models on both benchmarks, with larger gains on the degraded PureDocBench tracks, including a 4.03-point gain for the 4B model on the Real Degraded track.