Can You Trust the Confidence? ConfBench for Vision-Language Models on Document Extraction
Authors: Priyashree Roy, Sujitha Martin, Mohammad Rostami, Spencer Romo, Renhao Xue, Bob Strahan, Diego A. Socolinsky, Boyi Xie, +1 more
Organizations: Amazon Web Services
Abstract
Intelligent document processing (IDP) with vision-language models (VLMs) hinges on confidence scores trustworthy enough to route extractions between automation and human review. Existing document benchmarks are dominated by clean, high-quality samples, leaving low accuracy regions too sparse for calibration assessment. We introduce ConfBench, the first calibration-specific benchmark for key information extraction (KIE), built by applying 20 controlled degradation pipelines to a diverse document set, yielding 1,346 variants and 70K+ entity-level evaluations spanning the full accuracy spectrum. We evaluate four proprietary and three open-weight VLMs under verbalized and log-probability confidence estimation methods across three input modalities, and find: (i) OCR+Image modality results in more accurate confidence estimates; (ii) model capability is the dominant factor: within the Claude family confidence quality scales monotonically with capability, while across families parameter count is a poor predictor; (iii) calibration quality varies widely across models, from near-perfect to severely overconfident, and per-model post-hoc correction rescales these absolute confidence values for threshold-based routing without altering ranking-based operational metrics; and (iv) log-probability with first-token aggregation consistently outperforms mean-token and margin aggregations. We also introduce ECARB, a review-budget metric translating discriminative gains into operational savings. We release ConfBench publicly to enable systematic study of confidence estimators and calibration methods for trustworthy IDP application deployment.
Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to extract structured fields from business documents, yet most evaluations report accuracy on clean benchmarks and offer little guidance to practitioners choosing an approach for a given task complexity. We address this gap with a measurement-grounded study and an open-source release. Across eleven systems (three commercial, two reasoning, five open-source VLMs in pretrained and fine-tuned form, and a non-LLM OCR->regex floor) scored on a 750-document held-out pool of synthetic checks, fine-tuning on 3K samples lifts the best open-source VLMs above F1 0.98-above every zero-shot commercial system on this task-while GPT-5 leads the commercial pool on F1 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 collapses on Date. To turn these measurements into actionable choices, we introduce a practitioner-oriented selection framework that maps a task profile (quality, latency, governance, volume) to a recommended approach via filtering and total-cost minimization, illustrated on a hypothetical mid-volume document-extraction scenario.
A calibrated Vision-Language Model (VLM) can repeatedly self-correct, say "Wait, I should recheck," arrive at the wrong answer, and still report high confidence. We find that this occurs because verbalized confidence is largely trajectory-independent in the VLMs and calibration methods we evaluate. We examine this through three complementary lenses: content variation, token masking, and the model's own hesitation markers. We show that confidence is insufficiently sensitive to what the reasoning trajectory actually contains, and that calibration training can paradoxically worsen this disconnect. Since existing metrics like ECE and AUROC cannot detect this problem, we propose the Trajectory-Grounding Score (TGS) in two complementary forms: TGS-self, which compares confidence with and without access to the model's own trajectory, and TGS-pair, which tests whether the model assigns higher confidence to correct trajectories than to flawed ones along the vision, reasoning, and answer axes. We propose TGS-Bench, a model-agnostic suite spanning 10 benchmarks with controlled good/bad trajectory pairs, and show that conventional calibration rankings diverge from trajectory-grounding rankings, exposing a blind spot in current evaluation practice.
In high-stakes document processing pipelines, including financial reconciliation, compliance verification, and procurement automation, an LLM extraction that is silently wrong is more dangerous than one that is visibly absent. The central challenge is not extraction accuracy alone but reliable confidence estimation: knowing, field by field, whether an extraction can be trusted for automation or deferred to human review. Token-level log-probabilities, verbalized confidence, and multi-sample self-consistency all collapse toward all-positive behaviour at practical thresholds, offering no reliable separation between trustworthy and untrustworthy extractions. We present ExtractConf, a cross-domain, field-agnostic confidence engine that grounds confidence estimation in two structurally different readings of the same document. A field-guided Hunter call extracts each field under schema-slot completion pressure; a document-guided Mapper call scans holistically and surfaces values grounded in document content. This asymmetry yields different failure modes: Hunter hallucinates values for absent fields, while Mapper misses visually non-salient ones. Their disagreement is independently informative. ExtractConf fuses cross-call disagreement, LLM-internal uncertainty, OCR, image quality, and spatial layout into a classifier requiring no domain-specific rules or retraining. On DocILE (55-field invoices, 26% failure rate), it achieves 0.928 ROC AUC and reduces selective prediction risk by 70% over logprob-mean. At 80% coverage, accuracy reaches 99.1%, enabling a practical human-in-the-loop workflow. Zero-shot transfer to CORD receipts achieves 0.858 AUC; lightweight Lasso recalibration reduces ECE by 89% and Brier by 43%, confirming the signals generalise across document domains.