REVIEW 1 cited by
NEXT-EVAL: Next Evaluation of Traditional and LLM Web Data Record Extraction
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
NEXT-EVAL: Next Evaluation of Traditional and LLM Web Data Record Extraction
read the original abstract
Effective evaluation of web data record extraction methods is crucial, yet hampered by static, domain-specific benchmarks and opaque scoring practices. This makes fair comparison between traditional algorithmic techniques, which rely on structural heuristics, and Large Language Model (LLM)-based approaches, offering zero-shot extraction across diverse layouts, particularly challenging. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a concrete evaluation framework. Our framework systematically generates evaluation datasets from arbitrary MHTML snapshots, annotates XPath-based supervision labels, and employs structure-aware metrics for consistent scoring, specifically preventing text hallucination and allowing only for the assessment of positional hallucination. It also incorporates preprocessing strategies to optimize input for LLMs while preserving DOM semantics: HTML slimming, Hierarchical JSON, and Flat JSON. Additionally, we created a publicly available synthetic dataset by transforming DOM structures and modifying content. We benchmark deterministic heuristic algorithms and off-the-shelf LLMs across these multiple input formats. Our benchmarking shows that Flat JSON input enables LLMs to achieve superior extraction accuracy (F1 score of 0.9567) and minimal hallucination compared to other input formats like Slimmed HTML and Hierarchical JSON. We establish a standardized foundation for rigorous benchmarking, paving the way for the next principled advancements in web data record extraction.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Do Generative AI Assistants Respect robots.txt? Tracing Web Access Beyond Visible Answers
Under controlled tests, several major AI assistants (Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek, Qwen) accessed robots.txt-disallowed web pages without ever requesting the robots.txt file, while Claude and Mistral generally complied.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.