Docling in Converting a complex PDF into clean Markdown with an open-source library
Scenario-level performance from current published Results.
6 of 12 scenarios published
Where Docling failed
4 of 6 graded scenarios. Open a Result to see the conversation and the evidence.
A document containing a code block
Docling failed to keep code block line structure and indentation intact. It fenced the Python, but the code and shell blocks collapsed to single lines, and the block-header excerpt became ordinary prose.
View Result →A document with a data chart
Docling’s default Markdown conversion did not preserve the data chart as an image. The chart title became a heading, followed by an image placeholder at the correct position.
View Result →A document with styled headings and subheadings
Docling did not keep the heading hierarchy intact for this PDF. The source showed three heading levels and a title block, but the Markdown flattened all 26 headings to level 2 and merged one section with its subsection.
View Result →Footnotes at the bottom of the page
Docling did not preserve the relationship between footnotes and their references in Markdown. It included all 13 footnote texts, but placed them in the body flow without associating them with their markers.
View Result →How Docling performed
Open a capability to explore its scenarios. Each row reports the test set in its published Result.
Code Extraction1 fail
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A document containing a code block | 0 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case failedWhat happenedDocling failed to keep code block line structure and indentation intact. It fenced the Python, but the code and shell blocks collapsed to single lines, and the block-header excerpt became ordinary prose. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
Equations & Mathematical Notation1 pass
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A document containing mathematical equations | 1 Pass0 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case passedWhat happenedDocling passed this equation-handling case. It converted the three-page PDF in the default pipeline and replaced all six display equations with explicit fallback markers in the right places instead of garbled prose. The inline mathematical symbols were moved out of some sentences, and no LaTeX or MathML appears in the output. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
Figures & Charts1 fail1 no Result yet
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A document with a data chart | 0 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case failedWhat happenedDocling’s default Markdown conversion did not preserve the data chart as an image. The chart title became a heading, followed by an image placeholder at the correct position. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| A document with figures and captions | No published result | ||
Heading & Section Structure2 fail
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A document with styled headings and subheadings | 0 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case failedWhat happenedDocling did not keep the heading hierarchy intact for this PDF. The source showed three heading levels and a title block, but the Markdown flattened all 26 headings to level 2 and merged one section with its subsection. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| Footnotes at the bottom of the page | 0 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case failedWhat happenedDocling did not preserve the relationship between footnotes and their references in Markdown. It included all 13 footnote texts, but placed them in the body flow without associating them with their markers. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
Table Extraction1 pass1 no Result yet
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A simple, clearly formatted table | 1 Pass0 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case passedWhat happenedDocling kept the simple table intact in Markdown. The output has one four-column table with eight data rows, and every value stayed under the right header. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| A table that continues across a page break | No published result | ||
Reading Order & Layout1 no Result yet
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A page laid out in multiple columns | No published result | ||
Scanned Document OCR2 no Result yet
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A cleanly scanned document | No published result | ||
| A document mixing digital and scanned pages | No published result | ||
Text Fidelity1 no Result yet
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| An ordinary digital text document | No published result | ||
Reading these Results
Published evidence and test coverage answer different questions.
Which scenarios have a Result?
A published Result is public evidence for this tool on one scenario. “No published result” does not say whether testing has taken place.
What does each Result cover?
Assessed includes Pass, Fail and Not gradable. Gradable includes Pass and Fail. Both use the pinned test count in that published Result.
Out of 12 scenarios
The summary counts each of the 12 scenarios once. A scenario fails when any of its published test cases failed. “No published Result yet” means nothing is public for that scenario; it does not say whether Docling was tested on it.