RaV-IDP: A Reconstruction-as-Validation Framework for Faithful Intelligent Document Processing
Abstract
Reconstruction as Validation (RaV-IDP) introduces a document processing pipeline that uses reconstruction and comparison against original sources to validate extraction quality, triggering fallback mechanisms when fidelity drops below thresholds.
Intelligent document processing pipelines extract structured entities (tables, images, and text) from documents for use in downstream systems such as knowledge bases, retrieval-augmented generation, and analytics. A persistent limitation of existing pipelines is that extraction output is produced without any intrinsic mechanism to verify whether it faithfully represents the source. Model-internal confidence scores measure inference certainty, not correspondence to the document, and extraction errors pass silently into downstream consumers. We present Reconstruction as Validation (RaV-IDP), a document processing pipeline that introduces reconstruction as a first-class architectural component. After each entity is extracted, a dedicated reconstructor renders the extracted representation back into a form comparable to the original document region, and a comparator scores fidelity between the reconstruction and the unmodified source crop. This fidelity score is a grounded, label-free quality signal. When fidelity falls below a per-entity-type threshold, a structured GPT-4.1 vision fallback is triggered and the validation loop repeats. We enforce a bootstrap constraint: the comparator always anchors against the original document region, never against the extraction, preventing the validation from becoming circular. We further propose a per-stage evaluation framework pairing each pipeline component with an appropriate benchmark. The code pipeline is publicly available at https://github.com/pritesh-2711/RaV-IDP for experimentation and use.
Community
The simplest possible test for whether an extraction is faithful requires no labelled data, no model
internals, and no domain-specific rules. It asks one question: given only the extracted representation,
can you reconstruct the original document? A correct extraction contains all the information present
in the source. If the rendering of that extraction does not resemble the source, then we can say that
something was lost or distorted. This is the central hypothesis of this paper — and it leads directly to a
measurable, label-free quality signal.
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- VAREX: A Benchmark for Multi-Modal Structured Extraction from Documents (2026)
- DocRevive: A Unified Pipeline for Document Text Restoration (2026)
- ParseBench: A Document Parsing Benchmark for AI Agents (2026)
- DISCO: Document Intelligence Suite for COmparative Evaluation (2026)
- Benchmarking PDF Parsers on Table Extraction with LLM-based Semantic Evaluation (2026)
- Qianfan-OCR: A Unified End-to-End Model for Document Intelligence (2026)
- Multimodal OCR: Parse Anything from Documents (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper