Skip to content

Evidence First, Arithmetic Second: A System Report and Failure Analysis for DocSem

Sep 2026 · 0 citations · 7 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

The authors' manual, post-hoc analysis is descriptive: in one inspected case, optical character recognition (OCR) and block grouping merged the relevant passage into another block, and the system answered from unrelated text.

Abstract

EVICALC, our system for the DocSem shared task, achieved 8.61% joint accuracy on 1,730 tasks in the official final test evaluation. It reads a PDF, selects a passage, asks a language model to write an arithmetic expression, and evaluates that expression in local code. Saved intermediate results support inspection of failures. A separate public-validation run achieved 92.17% answer accuracy and 1.00 evidence F1. The configurations and metrics differ, so these scores are not a controlled comparison. Our manual, post-hoc analysis is descriptive: in one inspected case, optical character recognition (OCR) and block grouping merged the relevant passage into another block, and the system answered from unrelated text. An exploratory study of reading page images on 100 documents returned evidence identifiers for only 22 documents. These descriptive findings motivate further evaluation; they do not establish the causes of the overall score.

View source

Similar papers

MAWILE: Multi-Axis Workbench for Inspecting LLM Evaluators

MAWILE is introduced, a developer-facing workbench for auditing judge sensitivity across four surfaces: the judge prompt, judge rubric, target-system input, and target-system output, and it audits binary, ordinal, and pairwise judges without requiring gold labels.

Jackson Hassell, Farima Fatahi Bayat, Pouya Pezeshkpour et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Aug 2026

Commit-first LLM judging inherits the judge's own errors

commit-first judging does not remove the anchor that gets gamed, it moves it from the candidate to the judge's own answer, so evaluation is only as good as the judge is at the task, so evaluation is only as good as the judge is at the task.

Idil Gozel · 2 citations
Open access Oct 2026

Prompt Complexity, Overprompting, and the Honesty of Error in LLM-Based Mechanical Drawing Interpretation: A Structured Empirical Evaluation

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to interpret mechanical engineering drawings, yet the main risk is a wrong answer that reads as correct. We report an exploratory empirical study of how prompt design and evaluation shape the reliability of this interpretation, in two connected stages over the same twe...

P. Pistofidis, Anastasia Petrou, P. Botsaris · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Anchoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems: Prior Scores Compromise Evaluation Independence

It is shown that prior scores, even when included only as context metadata, anchor judgments and systematically shift ratings toward their values, and effective mitigation must be validated for the intended model and task or domain.

A. Kapetanović, Kemal Altwlkany, Andro Merćep et al. · 1 citation
#small language model Preprint Sep 2026

Configuration, Not Conscience: A Large-Scale Empirical Study of LLM System Prompts

Analysis of leaked system prompts from 62 vendors across four community collections supports treating leaked prompts as operational specifications, closer to configuration files than value statements, and treats reuse and prompt rot as engineering and supply-chain concerns.

C. Patsakis, Vasileios Argyropoulos, Efthymios Alepis · 0 citations

Related blog posts

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.