Learning to Ground Before Reading: Unified PCB Engineering Drawing Parsing with Compact Vision-Language Models
Authors: Jinghao Liu, Xingrun Liu, Gengchen Sun, Han Xiao, Xingyu Chen, Yuhui Deng
Organizations: Beijing Normal–Hong Kong Baptist University, Zhuhai 519087, China · Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Interdisciplinary Research and Application for Data Science, Zhuhai 519087, China · Faculty of Science, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong SAR 999077, China · Hong Kong aiKnow Limited, Hong Kong SAR, China
PCB engineering drawings mix sparse graphics, dense tables, and text whose meaning depends on page position. Localizing the regions and sending crops to specialized recognizers are determined as the methods for most parsers, so missed regions cannot be recovered downstream. We train a compact VLM to read the full page and get a sequence of region classes, normalized boxes, and text or HTML content. Bounding boxes are converted to coordinate tokens for supervision. Inference uses no detector or crop parser. The joint target is difficult to optimize because class and box tokens are sparse relative to the much longer content sequences. Our localization-first curriculum learns the class-box format before adding content targets with content-aware resampling. On the fixed validation split of the Engineering Drawing Dataset (ED dataset), Localization-First improves strict localization F1 by 0.0955 over joint training (paired image-bootstrap 95% interval: [0.0350, 0.1572]). G-Unified has the lowest NED, highest cell F1, and only nonzero exact-match score. It provides a detector-free baseline for full-page PCB drawing parsing.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Three parsing modes considered in this study. (a) Grounding Only predicts region classes and locations without content. (b) Cascaded Grounding & Parsing first localizes and crops each region, then sends the crop to a separate VLM. (c) Unified Grounding & Parsing predicts classes, boxes, and content directly from the full page in one VLM call. Green highlights the unified mode used in the primary experiments.
Variant
Backbone
Records/epoch
Training intervention
2B unified
2B
241
Original joint target
4B baseline
4B
241
Original joint target
4B no-thinking
4B
241
Direct structured answer only
4B stable
4B
802
Content-heavy continued adaptation
4B Local-First
4B
241 / 615
Box-only warm-up, then full targets
4B hard-class
4B
961
Hard-label sampling and dirty-content removal
Table 1: Unified-training variants. Counts are records sampled per epoch, not distinct drawings. All rows use the same validation split of the ED dataset.
Figure 2: End-to-end Local-First parsing with full-page localization and structured content extraction.
Model
Pred.
Prec.
Rec.
F1
mIoU
NED ↓
Cell F1
EM
2B unified
231
.2121
.1801
.1948
.6982
—
—
—
4B baseline
144
.5694
.3015
.3942
.8083
.8825
.1464
.0000
4B no-thinking
191
.5550
.3897
.4579
.8293
.8629
.2230
.0000
4B stable
188
.5798
.4007
.4739
.8751
.8347
.1497
.0145
4B Local-First
165
.6485
.3934
.4897
.8907
.8143
.1516
.0299
4B hard-class
173
.6416
.4081
.4989
.8982
.8466
.1945
.0294
Table 2: Strict one-pass results on the same 26 validation drawings from the ED dataset (272 boxes; 78 content-bearing references). NED is lower-is-better; all other metrics are higher-is-better. Missing content receives NED 1 and zero task credit.
Figure 3: Unified-model training and held-out comparison. (a) Cold-start joint losses for 2B and 4B models. (b) Warm-start and continued-run losses. (c) The two Local-First phases. (d) Gradient norms and (e) learning-rate schedules. (f) Held-out metrics on the ED dataset, with sequence similarity shown as 1−NED . Panels (a)–(e) show optimization traces; panel (f) reports held-out scores.
Paired contrast
ΔF1
95% interval
Pr(Δ>0)
Local-First − baseline
.0955
[.0350,.1572]
.9986
Local-First − stable
.0158
[−.0598,.0862]
.6346
Hard-class − Local-First
.0092
[−.0428,.0551]
.6430
Table 3: Paired image bootstrap for strict micro-F1 on the ED dataset ( B=5,000 ). The last column is the fraction of replicates with positive difference, not a parametric p -value.
Figure 4: Strict diagnostics on the ED dataset. (a) Localization precision, recall, F1, and matched IoU. (b) Full-denominator content metrics, with 1−NED used so every cell is higher-is-better. (c) Per-class F1. Paired bootstrap intervals are reported in Table 3 .
System
Pred.
Precision
Recall
F1
mIoU
eDOCr2 reproduction [ 21 ]
214
.2383
.1875
.2099
.8280
G-Unified Local-First
165
.6485
.3934
.4897
.8907
Hybrid-VL reproduction [ 10 ]
268
.6754
.6654
.6704
.8215
Table 4: Strict localization on the same 26 validation drawings from the ED dataset (272 boxes). Every emitted record is counted; higher is better.
System
Content stage
Localized
Usable
NED ↓
Cell F1
EM
eDOCr2
Tesseract + Qwen2-VL-7B
13/78
9/78
.9856
.0602
.0000
Hybrid-VL
Florence-2-base-ft
48/78
0/78
1.0000
.0000
.0000
G-Unified Local-First
page-level Qwen3.5-4B
27/78
23/78
.8143
.1516
.0299
Table 5: Strict end-to-end content extraction on the same 78 content references from 20 content-bearing drawings in the ED dataset. NED is lower-is-better; cell F1 and exact match (EM) are higher-is-better.
Decode
Format rate
Usable
Mean NED ↓
EM
Original saved output
.000
0/78
1.000
.000
Repair-only
1.000
78/78
.515
.000
Prefix-regenerate + repair
1.000
78/78
.553
.000
Table 6: Florence decoder diagnostics on 78 human-annotated crops from the ED dataset.
Figure 5: Qualitative localization comparison on three drawings from the ED dataset (V02, V09, and V10). Columns show eDOCr2, Hybrid-VL, and G-Unified; colors follow the shared six-class ontology.
Engineering diagrams pose a distinct challenge for vision-language models: unlike natural images or general documents, they encode information through dense spatial layouts, domain-specific symbols, and cross-references between visual callouts and structured parts tables. Despite their centrality to service, repair, and design workflows, there is no public benchmark for measuring VLM capabilities in this domain; existing datasets primarily focus on flowcharts, scientific figures, or business documents. To address this gap, we introduce Enginuity, the first open dataset and benchmark for evaluating VLMs on complex engineering diagrams. We define two tasks over a corpus of U.S. military service and repair manuals: structured parts-table extraction (Task 1) and free-form visual diagram question answering (VQA)(Task 2) for benchmarking. We evaluate four frontier VLMs (GPT-5.2 Chat, Claude Opus 4.7, Gemma 4, Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct) under zero-shot and chain-of-thought prompting. On Task 1, models reach Recall@all of 0.61-0.87 but Token F1pen of only 0.03-0.18, exposing a systematic gap between part identification and description fidelity. Task 2 reveals a consistent factual-reasoning gap across all models. A supporting analysis shows that token-overlap metrics under-report model capability on technical descriptions by 2-6x relative to semantic similarity, motivating LLM-as-judge calibration for domain-specific evaluation. We release the dataset, annotations, evaluation harness, and per-sample model outputs to support a reproducible study of VLM capability on engineering content.
Abhishek Kumar, Isha Motiyani, Tilak Kasturi +3
Predii · Oak Ridge National Laboratory · Independent Researcher
Document understanding systems are typically evaluated as separate components via layout analysis, optical text recognition, reading-order prediction, and image captioning. This separation leaves scientific figures, captions, and visual semantics weakly connected, and fails to measure whether a model can produce a single page-level parse that is both structurally faithful and semantically accessible. We introduce Read-Parse-Describe, a unified dataset for document parsing with visual element description generation. Given a page image, models are required to output an ordered list of layout elements containing bounding boxes, semantic labels, reading-order indices, recognized textual content, and alternative text descriptions for visual elements. The benchmark is built from 2,402 documents, comprising 18,163 continuous pages, 125,218 layout elements, and 11,338 visual instances. Besides, we further propose a plug-and-play space-awareness enhancer that reuses multi-layer visual features and injects grid-aware spatial guidance into vision-language tokens for layout-aware generation. Experiments across end-to-end VLMs and pipeline parsers show that existing systems still struggle to jointly recover reading order and visual semantics, while our enhanced model achieves strong joint performance. These results highlight the need to move beyond isolated document parsing modules toward unified models that jointly read, parse, and describe complex documents. The new dataset and code will be made publicly available at https://github.com/yufanchen96/RPD
Yuheng Chen, Yufan Chen, Zhuojun Cai +8
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology · University of Alberta · Hunan University
Real-world engineering drawings are often large-format and information-dense. Answering practical engineering questions therefore requires both fine-grained understanding of engineering information and complex reasoning over objects, relations, and evidence distributed across different regions or views. Existing benchmarks cover a range of engineering-drawing understanding tasks involving local regions, individual views, specific elements, or more constrained visual settings. However, systematic evaluation of understanding over realistic, large-format engineering drawings remains limited. To address this gap, we introduce LED-BENCH, a multidisciplinary benchmark designed to evaluate fine-grained understanding and complex reasoning over large-format engineering drawings, spanning the mechanical, architectural, and transportation domains. Extensive evaluation of 11 representative multimodal large language models, including 8 proprietary models and 3 open-source models, reveals substantial remaining difficulty: GPT-5.6 Sol achieves 52.65% average accuracy, performance varies across engineering domains, and all evaluated models perform worse on questions requiring broader evidence integration. These results highlight fine-grained understanding, evidence integration, and complex reasoning over large-format engineering drawings as persistent challenges for current multimodal models.
Ke Li, Tianyi Wang, Enning You +4
Institute of AI for Engineering, Tongji University