aiqbench analysis
This paper presents a system report and failure analysis for EVICALC, which leverages large language models to extract arithmetic expressions from PDF documents and evaluate them locally. The authors provide descriptive insights into specific failure modes, such as OCR errors merging relevant passages with unrelated text, while noting that their exploratory study of page images yielded evidence identifiers for only a minority of documents. These findings highlight current limitations in document understanding pipelines and motivate further rigorous evaluation beyond post-hoc inspection.
Evidence First, Arithmetic Second: A System Report and Failure Analysis for DocSem
arXiv:2609.39013v1 Announce Type: new 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.
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.
5 pages, 1 figure, 2 tables. Accepted as a shared-task system paper at DocInsights 2026, co-located with EMNLP 2026
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)
arXiv:2609.39013 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.39013v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.39013 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 · 257 words
Related coverage

Lattice-Based Cryptography Explained
Quantum Zeitgeist · Aug 15, 2026
Performance Profiling on AMD GPUs – Part 5: Profiling-Driven Kernel Optimization with an AI Code-Assist Tool
AMD · Jul 16, 2026

PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026
[AINews] AI Engineer NYC: Gemini 4 Argon, Vals AI Benchmarks
Latent Space · Oct 14, 2026