Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

A Comparative Study of PDF Parsing Tools Across Diverse Document Categories

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.09871 v2 pith:63BVLHCD submitted 2024-10-13 cs.IR cs.DL

classification cs.IRcs.DL
keywords toolsdocumentparsingcategoriestableacrossdetectionextraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

PDF is one of the most prominent data formats, making PDF parsing crucial for information extraction and retrieval, particularly with the rise of RAG systems. While various PDF parsing tools exist, their effectiveness across different document types remains understudied, especially beyond academic papers. Our research aims to address this gap by comparing 10 popular PDF parsing tools across 6 document categories using the DocLayNet dataset. These tools include PyPDF, pdfminer-six, PyMuPDF, pdfplumber, pypdfium2, Unstructured, Tabula, Camelot, as well as the deep learning-based tools Nougat and Table Transformer(TATR). We evaluated both text extraction and table detection capabilities. For text extraction, PyMuPDF and pypdfium generally outperformed others, but all parsers struggled with Scientific and Patent documents. For these challenging categories, learning-based tools like Nougat demonstrated superior performance. In table detection, TATR excelled in the Financial, Patent, Law & Regulations, and Scientific categories. Table detection tool Camelot performed best for tender documents, while PyMuPDF performed superior in the Manual category. Our findings highlight the importance of selecting appropriate parsing tools based on document type and specific tasks, providing valuable insights for researchers and practitioners working with diverse document sources.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AdaParse: An Adaptive Parallel PDF Parsing and Resource Scaling Engine

    cs.IR 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AdaParse adaptively assigns each PDF to a cheap or expensive parser based on predicted output quality, achieving high throughput with comparable accuracy to state-of-the-art parsers.

  2. AQUA: A Large Language Model for Aquaculture & Fisheries

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    AQUA is presented as the first aquaculture-specific LLM, fine-tuned on roughly 3 million synthetic QA pairs filtered by an LLM judge, with claimed advantages over general models based on a four-question comparison.

Pith tools