aiqbench analysis
This study provides critical practical guidance for deploying vision-language models in document extraction, highlighting significant performance gaps between fine-tuned open-source systems and zero-shot commercial APIs while exposing specific failure modes like date parsing errors. By introducing a selection framework that balances quality, latency, governance, and cost, the authors offer an actionable methodology for practitioners to optimize their AI infrastructure beyond simple benchmark accuracy metrics. The accompanying open-source release further supports reproducibility and informed decision-making in real-world enterprise scenarios.
Beyond Accuracy: Robustness, Cost, and Governance Trade-offs for Vision-Language Models in Templated Document Extraction
arXiv:2609.15706v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to extract structured fields from business documents, yet most evaluations report accuracy on clean benchmarks and offer little guidance to practitioners choosing an approach for a given task complexity. We address this gap with a measurement-grounded study and an open-source release. Across eleven systems (three commercial, two reasoning, five open-source VLMs in pretrained and fine-tuned form, and a non-LLM OCR->regex floor) scored on a 750-document held-out pool of synthetic checks, fine-tuning on 3K samples lifts the best open-source VLMs above F1 0.98-above every zero-shot commercial system on this task-while GPT-5 leads the commercial pool on F1 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 collapses on Date. To turn these measurements into actionable choices, we introduce a practitioner-oriented selection framework that maps a task profile (quality, latency, governance, volume) to a recommended approach via filtering and total-cost minimization, illustrated on a hypothetical mid-volume document-extraction scenario.
Abstract:Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to extract structured fields from business documents, yet most evaluations report accuracy on clean benchmarks and offer little guidance to practitioners choosing an approach for a given task complexity. We address this gap with a measurement-grounded study and an open-source release. Across eleven systems (three commercial, two reasoning, five open-source VLMs in pretrained and fine-tuned form, and a non-LLM OCR->regex floor) scored on a 750-document held-out pool of synthetic checks, fine-tuning on 3K samples lifts the best open-source VLMs above F1 0.98-above every zero-shot commercial system on this task-while GPT-5 leads the commercial pool on F1 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 collapses on Date. To turn these measurements into actionable choices, we introduce a practitioner-oriented selection framework that maps a task profile (quality, latency, governance, volume) to a recommended approach via filtering and total-cost minimization, illustrated on a hypothetical mid-volume document-extraction scenario.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.15706 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.15706v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.15706 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 241 words
Related coverage

Amazon Research Awards recipients announced
Amazon Science · May 27, 2026

34 Amazon Research Awards Build on Trainium recipients announced
Amazon Science · Aug 5, 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026

NVIDIA GTC Taipei at COMPUTEX: Live Updates on What’s Next in AI
NVIDIA · May 21, 2026