Papers › ExtractBench: A Benchmark and Evaluation Methodology for Complex Structured Extraction

ExtractBench: A Benchmark and Evaluation Methodology for Complex Structured Extraction

12 Feb 2026arXiv:2602.12247added by Syntology

Nick Ferguson, Josh Pennington, Narek Beghian, Aravind Mohan, Douwe Kiela, Sheshansh Agrawal, Thien Hang Nguyen

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Unstructured documents like PDFs contain valuable structured information, but downstream systems require this data in reliable, standardized formats. LLMs are increasingly deployed to automate this extraction, making accuracy and reliability paramount. However, progress is bottlenecked by two gaps. First, no end-to-end benchmark evaluates PDF-to-JSON extraction under enterprise-scale schema breadth. Second, no principled methodology captures the semantics of nested extraction, where fields demand different notions of correctness (exact match for identifiers, tolerance for quantities, semantic equivalence for names), arrays require alignment, and omission must be distinguished from hallucination. We address both gaps with ExtractBench, an open-source benchmark and evaluation framework for PDF-to-JSON structured extraction. The benchmark pairs 35 PDF documents with JSON Schemas and human-annotated gold labels across economically valuable domains, yielding 12,867 evaluatable fields spanning schema complexities from tens to hundreds of fields. The evaluation framework treats the schema as an executable specification: each field declares its scoring metric. Baseline evaluations reveal that frontier models (GPT-5/5.2, Gemini-3 Flash/Pro, Claude 4.5 Opus/Sonnet) remain unreliable on realistic schemas. Performance degrades sharply with schema breadth, culminating in 0% valid output on a 369-field financial reporting schema across all tested models. We release ExtractBench at https://github.com/ContextualAI/extract-bench.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

14 samples harvested; 6 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 8 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 14 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from ContextualAI/extract-bench. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2602.12247, was issued in February 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections