Skip to content
Preprint

From Diagnosis to Correction: Benchmarking and Improving Real-World Table Parsing

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 40 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

Decompose--Enhance--Correct (Decompose--Enhance--Correct), a visual-consistency-guided agentic framework that improves frozen table parsers without retraining is proposed, which derives a 1,977-table Consensus-Hard Set from 4,556 candidates through offline metrics and cross-model consensus.

Abstract

Recent document parsers achieve table TEDS scores above 93 on OmniDocBench v1.6, yet community feedback and our audit reveal persistent failures on complex real-world tables. To quantify this gap, we introduce TableParseMap, a diagnostic benchmark of 916 real-world tables organized into five challenging scenarios and nine failure types. The strongest evaluated parser achieves only 85.03 TEDS, showing that aggregate benchmark scores conceal substantial weaknesses. Our analysis attributes these failures to three complementary limitations: large tables exceed the reliable processing scale of a single pass, weak or ambiguous visual cues hinder structure perception, and the reconstructed table may remain visually inconsistent with the image. We therefore propose DEC (Decompose--Enhance--Correct), a visual-consistency-guided agentic framework that improves frozen table parsers without retraining. DEC uses a general VLM as the controller: Decompose partitions large tables along structure-aware boundaries, Enhance exposes weak visual evidence and reparses transformed views, and Correct diagnoses and repairs residual errors. A Visual Consistency Gate (VC-Gate) selectively triggers intervention, while a Visual Consistency Ranker (VC-Ranker) verifies candidate updates and supports rollback without ground-truth HTML at inference time. We further derive a 1,977-table Consensus-Hard Set from 4,556 candidates through offline metrics and cross-model consensus. Across three frozen parsers, DEC improves TEDS by 1.57 points on average; on TableParseMap, gains reach 1.89 points overall, 2.62 on structural errors, and 5.66 on large tables.

View source

Similar papers

Book Open access Jul 2026

Effectiveness of Sparse Retrieval for Automated Fact-Checking

These findings establish learned sparse retrieval as a highly impactful design choice in automated fact-checking, with retrieval quality serving as a critical determinant of end-to-end performance in the studied systems.

Ritvik Setty, Vinay Setty · 0 citations
Review Aug 2026

SABRE: Scalable and Automated Benchmarking of VLMs under Stress

SABRE is established as a reusable framework for constructing and refreshing VLM stress tests rather than a single fixed benchmark, and the results establish SABRE as a reusable framework for constructing and refreshing VLM stress tests rather than a single fixed benchmark.

Zi-Xuan Lan, Luzhe Sun, Matthew R. Walter et al. · 0 citations
Book Open access Jun 2025

TReB: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Table Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models

This paper proposes a taxonomy to systematically measure both shallow table understanding abilities and deep table reasoning abilities, and designs an evaluation framework to robustly measure table reasoning capabilities with three distinct inference modes.

Ce Li, Xiaofan Liu, Zhiyan Song et al. · 3 citations
Jul 2026

When Knowledge Changes: Metamorphic Testing of RAG Systems with Mutations

This work introduces a metamorphic testing framework that evaluates the consistency of RAG systems under corpus evolution, formalising a fault taxonomy and 11 mutation operators that systematically perturb the system at both the pre-chunk (retrieval index) and post-chunk (retrieved context) levels.

Jinhan Kim, Samuele Pasini, Paolo Tonella · 1 citation
Preprint Aug 2026

The Calibration Floor: Format Repair Can Masquerade as Self-Correction at Small-to-Mid Scale

This work decomposes the always-revise accuracy shift into a content margin (both answers parseable) and format-recovery/loss margins (parseability changes) and shows this can fail at the answer-extraction boundary, and test the failure causally rather than only observationally.

Mingguang Chen, Bo Qu, Licheng Wang · 0 citations

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