LiteParse 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 LiteParse failed
3 of 6 graded scenarios. Open a Result to see the conversation and the evidence.
A document with a data chart
LiteParse did not keep the chart as an image in Markdown. It preserved the chart's title and position, but the output reduced the chart to a placeholder link, with no image file written and OCR text standing in for the chart content.
View Result →Footnotes at the bottom of the page
LiteParse failed to keep the footnote both present and attached while leaving it out of the body flow. The output kept footnotes in page-end blocks, but footnote 5 disappeared while its marker stayed in the body; other footnotes were also merged or detached.
View Result →A page laid out in multiple columns
LiteParse failed to keep the page’s text in natural column order. The output kept all source text, but three sentence continuations appeared before the text they completed, with unrelated material between them.
View Result →How LiteParse performed
Open a capability to explore its scenarios. Each row reports the test set in its published 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 happenedLiteParse did not keep the chart as an image in Markdown. It preserved the chart's title and position, but the output reduced the chart to a placeholder link, with no image file written and OCR text standing in for the chart content. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| A document with figures and captions | No published result | ||
Heading & Section Structure1 pass1 fail
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A document with styled headings and subheadings | 1 Pass0 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case passedWhat happenedLiteParse kept the styled headings nested correctly in Markdown. The source has three heading tiers, and the output matches them in count, strings and order; the title block remains plain text. | 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 happenedLiteParse failed to keep the footnote both present and attached while leaving it out of the body flow. The output kept footnotes in page-end blocks, but footnote 5 disappeared while its marker stayed in the body; other footnotes were also merged or detached. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
Reading Order & Layout1 fail
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A page laid out in multiple columns | 0 Pass1 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case failedWhat happenedLiteParse failed to keep the page’s text in natural column order. The output kept all source text, but three sentence continuations appeared before the text they completed, with unrelated material between them. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
Scanned Document OCR1 pass1 no Result yet
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A document mixing digital and scanned pages | 1 Pass0 Fail0 Not gradable 1 of 1 test case passedWhat happenedLiteParse kept the scanned page in the mixed PDF instead of skipping it. The Markdown places the scanned page between the digital pages and recovers its text, though labels and values come out as separate groups; OCR completed. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| A cleanly scanned document | No published 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 happenedLiteParse kept the simple table structured correctly in Markdown. A cell-by-cell comparison showed all four headers, eight rows, and thirty-two values in place, and the only other visible changes were outside the table. | 1/1 assessed1/1 gradablePublished test set | View Result → |
| A table that continues across a page break | No published result | ||
Code Extraction1 no Result yet
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A document containing a code block | No published result | ||
Equations & Mathematical Notation1 no Result yet
Capability in this benchmark →
| Scenario | Published outcomes | Test coverage | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A document containing mathematical equations | 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 LiteParse was tested on it.