We call on the Document AI (DocAI) community to reevaluate current methodologies and embrace the challenge of creating more practically-oriented benchmarks. Document Understanding Dataset and Evaluation (DUDE) seeks to remediate the halted research progress in understanding visually-rich documents (VRDs). We present a new dataset1with novelties related to types of questions, answers, and document layouts based on multi-industry, multi-domain, and multi-page VRDs of various origins, and dates. Moreover, we are pushing the boundaries of current methods by creating multi-task and multi-domain evaluation setups that more accurately simulate real-world situations where powerful generalization and adaptation under low-resource settings are desired. DUDE aims to set a new standard as a more practical, long-standing benchmark for the community, and we hope that it will lead to future extensions and contributions that address real-world challenges. Finally, our work illustrates the importance of finding more efficient ways to model language, images, and layout in DocAI.

We introduce a simple new approach to the problem of understanding documents where non-trivial layout influences the local semantics. To this end, we modify the Transformer encoder architecture in a way that allows it to use layout features obtained from an OCR system, without the need to re-learn language semantics from scratch. We only augment the input of the model with the coordinates of token bounding boxes, avoiding, in this way, the use of raw images. This leads to a layout-aware language model which can then be fine-tuned on downstream tasks. The model is evaluated on an end-to-end information extraction task using four publicly available datasets: Kleister NDA, Kleister Charity, SROIE and CORD. We show that our model achieves superior performance on datasets consisting of visually rich documents, while also outperforming the baseline RoBERTa on documents with flat layout (NDA \(F_{1}\) increase from 78.50 to 80.42). Our solution ranked first on the public leaderboard for the Key Information Extraction from the SROIE dataset, improving the SOTA \(F_{1}\)-score from 97.81 to 98.17.

The relevance of the Key Information Extraction (KIE) task is increasingly important in natural language processing problems. But there are still only a few well-defined problems that serve as benchmarks for solutions in this area. To bridge this gap, we introduce two new datasets (Kleister NDA and Kleister Charity). They involve a mix of scanned and born-digital long formal English-language documents. In these datasets, an NLP system is expected to find or infer various types of entities by employing both textual and structural layout features. The Kleister Charity dataset consists of 2,788 annual financial reports of charity organizations, with 61,643 unique pages and 21,612 entities to extract. The Kleister NDA dataset has 540 Non-disclosure Agreements, with 3,229 unique pages and 2,160 entities to extract. We provide several state-of-the-art baseline systems from the KIE domain (Flair, BERT, RoBERTa, LayoutLM, LAMBERT), which show that our datasets pose a strong challenge to existing models. The best model achieved an 81.77% and an 83.57% F1-score on respectively the Kleister NDA and the Kleister Charity datasets. We share the datasets to encourage progress on more in-depth and complex information extraction tasks.

Nie dotyczy

The aim of this paper was to propose a classification system composed of monolingual classifiers and a multilingual decision module, for handling large numbers of multilingual documents. The system was compared with two monolingual classifiers, respectively for English and Polish, and with the maximum probability model. The tests were carried out over multilingual documents that contained components of two languages, English and Polish. The conclusion was that the proposed system is capable to cope with the efficient categorization of a large number of documents related to assorted topics, and simultaneously contained components from many languages. Additional objectives were to examine of two ways of data representation, as well as hierarchical and horizontal approaches to classification, assuming that a structure of classes is hierarchical. The results showed that the document representation as separate features is better than a bag of words, and the flat approach is only slightly better than the hierarchical approach.