Splitting Documents at Lower Cost: Multi-Split Boundary Decisions for LLM-Based Page Stream Segmentation

Nikhil Reddy Pottanigari; Sepideh Kharaghani; Saverio Vadacchino; Alejandro Posada; Ying Zhang

cs.AISep 18, 2026

Splitting Documents at Lower Cost: Multi-Split Boundary Decisions for LLM-Based Page Stream Segmentation

Authors: Nikhil Reddy Pottanigari, Sepideh Kharaghani, Saverio Vadacchino, Alejandro Posada, Ying Zhang

Organizations: ServiceNow Canada

Abstract

Scanned mail, uploaded PDFs, and consolidated attachments often arrive as page streams that must be split into individual documents before downstream classification, extraction, or routing. Zero-shot large language models can detect document boundaries without task-specific training, but standard Page Classification (PC) and Boundary Decision (BD) formulations resolve only one boundary per model call. We introduce Multi-Split Boundary Decision (MSBD), which predicts multiple boundaries within a page window in a single call, reducing the number of inference requests. We evaluate MSBD across multiple language models, document collections, input modalities, and window sizes. The results reveal a model- and corpus-dependent operating range in which MSBD preserves strong segmentation accuracy while substantially improving inference efficiency, followed by a sharp decline at larger windows. MSBD provided the strongest overall accuracy--efficiency trade-off, while large windows expose distinct over- and under-segmentation behavior across models. These findings show that multi-boundary prediction can make zero-shot page stream segmentation more efficient when the window size is selected for the target corpus.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: Zero-shot PSS formulations. PC classifies each page independently, BD evaluates one adjacent-page pair per call, and MSBD predicts all $K{-}1$ boundaries within a $K$ -page window in a single call.

Figure 2: Boundary F1 for PC and BD. Adjacent-page context substantially improves TABME++, but provides limited benefit on the form-heavy VRDU dataset.

Dataset	Setting	Cut	Continue	Micro
TABME++	PC	0.637	0.824	0.757
	BD-Concat	0.619	0.830	0.769
	BD-LSTM	0.623	0.926	0.817
VRDU	PC	0.988	0.782	0.878
	BD-Concat	0.992	0.769	0.872
	BD-LSTM	0.992	0.750	0.862

Table 1: Accuracy of trained boundary classifiers using frozen Vision Classifier † features. PC uses one page, BD-Concat concatenates adjacent-page features, and BD-LSTM processes the same pair sequentially. Cut and Continue are per-class accuracies; Micro is overall accuracy. Best Micro per dataset is in bold . † In-house proprietary feature extractor; results are indicative rather than independently reproducible.

Dataset	Feature source	Cut	Continue	Micro
TABME++	Vision Classifier †	0.688	0.851	0.792
	FCOS	0.185	0.981	0.693
	GUSE	0.434	0.587	0.532
VRDU	Vision Classifier †	0.188	0.863	0.550
	FCOS	0.685	0.319	0.489
	GUSE	0.573	0.405	0.483

Table 2: Prototype-based feature-similarity results using Euclidean distance. Each adjacent-page pair is assigned to its nearest cut or continue prototype. Cut and Continue are per-class accuracies; Micro is overall accuracy. Best Micro per dataset is in bold . † In-house proprietary Vision Classifier features.

TABME++						VRDU
Model	Input	Method	B-F1	Lat	Cost	Model	Input	Method	B-F1	Lat	Cost
Claude Haiku 4.5	text	PC	0.674	2.12	10.33	Claude Haiku 4.5	text	PC	0.961	2.25	2.30
	text	BD	0.866	2.42	13.75		text	BD	0.969	2.50	3.26
	text	MSBD ( $K{=}3$ )	0.844	1.19	6.94		text	MSBD ( $K{=}3$ )	0.900	1.06	1.79
	text	MSBD ( $K{=}5$ )	0.817	1.30	5.18		text	MSBD ( $K{=}5$ )	0.795	1.15	1.39
	vision	PC	0.711	2.75	14.22		vision	PC	0.955	2.70	2.91

Table 3: PC, BD, and MSBD results across datasets, models, and input modalities (B-F1 = Boundary F1; Lat = per-call latency in seconds; Cost = full test set, USD). MSBD is shown at

K{=}3

and

K{=}5

for both modalities; the complete sweep (

K{=}2

–

50

) with costs and call counts appears in Tables 4 – 5 . Per dataset and model, the strongest B-F1 and the lowest cost among the rows shown are in bold ; larger windows reduce cost further. † Page-level F1 reported by Heidenreich et al. (2024) ; not directly comparable.

Figure 3: MSBD behavior across window sizes on TABME++ (top) and VRDU (bottom); solid and dashed curves show text and vision inputs. Left : Boundary F1 versus window size $K$ —the useful window (knee) depends on the model and dataset, with GPT-5.4-mini degrading earliest. Center : Boundary F1 versus test-set cost as $K$ increases—Gemini provides the strongest cost–accuracy trade-off. Right : predicted cut rate versus $K$ —Claude and Gemini increasingly over-segment, whereas GPT-5.4-mini under-segments at large $K$ ; horizontal dashed lines mark the ground-truth cut rates.

Appendix figures & tables8 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

	TABME++						VRDU
$K$	Cla-txt	Cla-vis	Gem-txt	Gem-vis	GPT-txt	GPT-vis	Cla-txt	Cla-vis	Gem-txt	Gem-vis	GPT-txt	GPT-vis
2	0.866	0.837	0.883	0.882	0.873	0.876	0.969	0.969	0.971	0.931	0.783	0.962
3	0.844	0.844	0.847	0.887	0.828	0.846	0.900	0.928	0.940	0.938	0.751	0.869
5	0.817	0.799	0.870	0.881	0.793	0.811	0.795	0.755	0.943	0.888	0.609	0.800
7	0.782	0.751	0.863	0.863	0.739	0.765	0.722	0.633	0.925	0.846	0.589	0.727
10	0.726	0.713	0.861	0.800	0.693	0.716	0.616	0.619	0.856	0.872	0.545	0.618

Appendix

Table 4: Boundary F1 across the complete MSBD sweep. The

K{=}2

setting is equivalent to BD. Cla, Gem, and GPT denote Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, and GPT-5.4-mini; txt and vis denote text and vision inputs. Results at large

K

on VRDU are based on relatively few windows and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. Costs and call counts for the same configurations appear in Table 5 .

	TABME++							VRDU
$K$	Calls	Cla-txt	Cla-vis	Gem-txt	Gem-vis	GPT-txt	GPT-vis	Calls	Cla-txt	Cla-vis	Gem-txt	Gem-vis	GPT-txt	GPT-vis
2	6236	13.75	21.25	2.79	4.74	7.72	12.39	1102	3.26	4.50	0.66	0.85	1.84	2.22
3	3118	6.94	12.63	1.61	3.13	4.28	7.84	551	1.79	2.73	0.41	0.56	1.11	1.41
5	1559	5.18	9.90	1.22	2.49	3.18	6.14	275	1.39	2.15	0.32	0.44	0.86	1.11
7	1039	4.58	8.97	1.09	2.27	2.81	5.57	183	1.24	1.96	0.29	0.41	0.77	1.00
10	692	4.18	8.35	1.00	2.13	2.57	5.19	122	1.15	1.84	0.27	0.38	0.72	0.94

Appendix

Table 5: Test-set cost in USD and model-call counts across the complete MSBD sweep. The

K{=}2

setting is equivalent to BD. Call counts depend only on the dataset and window size; individual runs may contain one or two fewer completed requests when a model call fails. Boundary F1 for the same configurations appears in Table 4 .

Figure 4: Boundary F1 across datasets, models, input modalities, and window sizes. Darker cells indicate higher F1. Gemini retains accuracy over the widest range of $K$ , while GPT-5.4-mini generally degrades earliest.

Figure 5: Mean latency per model call across the MSBD sweep. Text-input latency remains broadly stable at small and medium windows before increasing at larger $K$ , while vision latency generally rises more quickly as additional pages are included.

Figure 6: Correctly handled boundaries (VRDU). On clear transitions (distinct letterheads, advertisers, or form types), the models agree with the ground truth in both the cut and continue directions. These easy cases sit behind VRDU’s high scores at small $K$ .

Figure 7: Over-segmentation (VRDU): predicted cuts fall inside what is really a single document (ground truth continue ), fragmenting one filing across several predicted documents. Top row: all three models over-cut a continuation page (a contract’s second page; a line-item table continuing across pages). Middle row: only Claude over-cuts while Gemini and GPT-5.4-mini correctly continue. Bottom row: Claude and GPT-5.4-mini over-cut an agreement form’s own terms page (left), and in the rare reverse only Gemini over-cuts a multi-page invoice (right).

Figure 8: Under-segmentation (VRDU): a genuine boundary (ground truth cut ) is predicted as continue , merging two documents into one. Top row: all three models miss the boundary on visually ambiguous transitions (a schedule form giving way to an invoice; an invoice to a new station’s order). Bottom row: only Claude (left) or only Gemini (right) merges the documents while the other two models cut correctly.

Figure 9: Under-segmentation by GPT-5.4-mini (VRDU): in each of these windows GPT-5.4-mini alone predicts continue at a genuine boundary (ground truth cut ), merging adjacent filings, whereas Gemini and Claude both cut correctly.

Document Chunking

Document chunking splits long or structured documents into coherent units for retrieval, question answering, and other language-model tasks.

See all 53 papers

Feb 17, 2026

DocSplit: A Comprehensive Benchmark Dataset and Evaluation Approach for Document Packet Recognition and Splitting

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.

Md Mofijul Islam, Md Sirajus Salekin, Nivedha Balakrishnan +6

Amazon Web Services

Document Image Understanding Document Parsing Multimodal Model Evaluation Document Chunking

Ask PDF

Feb 13, 2026

HSD: Training-Free Acceleration for Document Parsing Vision-Language Models with Hierarchical Speculative Decoding

Document parsing is a fundamental task in multimodal understanding, supporting a wide range of downstream applications such as information extraction and intelligent document analysis. Benefiting from strong semantic modeling and robust generalization, VLM-based end-to-end approaches have emerged as the mainstream paradigm in recent years. However, these models often suffer from substantial inference latency, as they must autoregressively generate long, full-page sequences when processing long-form documents. While recent hybrid methods mitigate this issue via region-level parallel decoding with VLMs, independent region decoding loses full-page context and might weaken global coherence. To address this issue, we propose Hierarchical Speculative Decoding (HSD), a two-stage local-to-global framework for document parsing. HSD first employs a lightweight pipeline drafter to predict region partitions and generate coarse drafts for each region. The first stage verifies the generated region-level drafts in parallel for efficiency, while the second stage further performs page-level verification on these refined outputs to preserve full-page coherence. Experimental results show that HSD achieves a near-lossless 2.7x speedup with HunyuanOCR on OmniDocBench v1.5 and up to 7.04x speedup on long-document parsing tasks, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed method. The code is available at https://github.com/whlscut/HSD.

Wenhui Liao, Hongliang Li, Pengyu Xie +15

South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanghai, China · Nanjing University, Nanjing, China +1

Efficient VLM Inference Speculative Decoding Document Parsing Document Image Understanding

Ask PDF

Jul 23, 2026

Khondo: A Multimodal Benchmark for Document Packet Splitting of Bangla Forms

Document packets, multiple documents concatenated into a single file, are common in government and administrative workflows, yet splitting them into their constituent documents is difficult, especially for low-resource languages. We introduce Khondo (Bangla for split/segment), the first benchmark for document packet splitting on Bangladeshi government forms. Unlike prior English and OCR-text-based datasets, Khondo is bilingual (Bangla--English) and vision-native; where models operate directly on page images. It spans five concatenation schemes, from sequential to fully shuffled, across 14 administrative domains, with ground-truth boundaries, domain types, and page order. Zero-shot evaluation of MLLMs shows they cluster pages into their source documents fairly well but struggle in restoring the original page order once shuffled. To isolate what drives this difficulty, we run two controlled analyses, varying the prompt instruction and then the packet language. Both primarily affect ordering rather than clustering: (a) explicit page-order instructions are necessary but insufficient, and (b) English packets are ordered more reliably than Bangla, making page arrangement the dominant challenge and language a secondary but consistent factor. Khondo establishes page-order reconstruction as a key open problem in vision-based, low-resource document understanding, and provides a controlled benchmark for measuring progress toward solving it. Our dataset and code is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Mausul/khondo

Abu Tyeb Azad, Fahim Ahmed, Ishita Sur Apan +7

Wichita State University, USA · CCDS, Independent University, Bangladesh · Amazon GenAI, USA

Document Chunking Multilingual VLM Evaluation Document Image Understanding

Ask PDF

Abstract

Document Chunking

Explore similar work

DocSplit: A Comprehensive Benchmark Dataset and Evaluation Approach for Document Packet Recognition and Splitting

HSD: Training-Free Acceleration for Document Parsing Vision-Language Models with Hierarchical Speculative Decoding

Khondo: A Multimodal Benchmark for Document Packet Splitting of Bangla Forms