Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

From Pixels to Pairs: A Comprehensive Benchmark of LLM-Based Key-Value Extraction in Noisy Document Settings

Summary

arXiv:2609.17538v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for structured information extraction from documents, yet their behavior under realistic OCR noise remains poorly understood. We present a systematic benchmark of open-source instruction-tuned LLMs for key-value pair (KVP) extraction under both clean-text and noisy OCR conditions. We evaluate representative decoder-only models (Gemma, Mistral, Qwen2.5, LLaMA 3, and DeepSeek) on the FUNSD, CORD, and SROIE benchmarks using both Gold-text annotations and OCR outputs from PaddleOCR, EasyOCR, and Tesseract. A unified evaluation protocol isolates the effects of input quality, model design, and prompting under consistent conditions. The results show that modern LLMs act as strong semantic extractor…

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Zahra Anvari, Vassilis Athitsos
From Pixels to Pairs: A Comprehensive Benchmark of LLM-Based Key-Value Extraction in Noisy Document Settings
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 14 Jul 2026]

Title:From Pixels to Pairs: A Comprehensive Benchmark of LLM-Based Key-Value Extraction in Noisy Document Settings

View a PDF of the paper titled From Pixels to Pairs: A Comprehensive Benchmark of LLM-Based Key-Value Extraction in Noisy Document Settings, by Zahra Anvari and Vassilis Athitsos

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for structured information extraction from documents, yet their behavior under realistic OCR noise remains poorly understood. We present a systematic benchmark of open-source instruction-tuned LLMs for key-value pair (KVP) extraction under both clean-text and noisy OCR conditions.

We evaluate representative decoder-only models (Gemma, Mistral, Qwen2.5, LLaMA 3, and DeepSeek) on the FUNSD, CORD, and SROIE benchmarks using both Gold-text annotations and OCR outputs from PaddleOCR, EasyOCR, and Tesseract. A unified evaluation protocol isolates the effects of input quality, model design, and prompting under consistent conditions.

The results show that modern LLMs act as strong semantic extractors when high-quality text is available, in some cases approaching supervised layout-aware systems. Under OCR noise, however, performance degrades substantially and performance gaps between models narrow as input corruption increases.

Across all datasets, extraction performance is governed by two factors: semantic reasoning over text and preservation of textual fidelity under OCR noise. While larger models improve results on clean text, these gains diminish under noisy inputs, where OCR quality becomes the dominant factor. We also identify recurring failure modes, including key-value misalignment, hallucination, and numeric corruption. Our findings highlight the gap between clean-text evaluation and real-world deployment, emphasizing the need to jointly improve OCR quality, structural reasoning, and LLM-based semantic modeling.

Comments: 25 pages, 20 tables, 5 figures

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.17538 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.17538v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.17538

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Zahra Anvari [view email] [v1] Tue, 14 Jul 2026 02:20:43 UTC (10,830 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled From Pixels to Pairs: A Comprehensive Benchmark of LLM-Based Key-Value Extraction in Noisy Document Settings, by Zahra Anvari and Vassilis Athitsos

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs cs.CV

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2609.17538v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for structured information extraction from documents, yet their behavior under r…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.