Unverified50% confidenceBenchmarkExact time
In the ExtractBench Pro evaluation, a model may correctly identify a data point in a chart yet fail to associate it with the corresponding item in a table, or read a value but make a logical error in the reasoning process.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Medium-term (~90 days)
Relevance
10/20/2026
First Seen
Valid until: 1/18/2027
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedIn the answer extraction process, parsing the answer required by the tree nodes from the model output itself involves model-related errors, further lowering end-to-end accuracy.70% similarUnverifiedThe model's data extraction is accurate, but the generated bounding boxes are sometimes imprecise.67% similarUnverifiedTool-calling judge models have a systematic flaw: when no source for a value can be found in the input, the judge is more inclined to reject it even if the value is completely correct, a phenomenon named the "derivation gap".66% similarUnverifiedThe biggest risk of large models in data analysis scenarios is fabricating seemingly plausible but actually incorrect data when the corresponding field cannot be found.65% similarUnverifiedInference methods based on model internal features face a trade-off between false positives and false negatives64% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1073180API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1073180MCP
get_claim(id=1073180)