A Reliability Evaluation of Hybrid Deterministic-LLM Based Approaches for Academic Course Registration PDF Information Extraction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00003v1
• Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2026 02:09:02 GMT
• Title: A Reliability Evaluation of Hybrid Deterministic-LLM Based Approaches for Academic Course Registration PDF Information Extraction
• Abstract summary: This study evaluates the reliability of information extraction approaches from KRS documents using three strategies.<n>Experiments were conducted on 140 documents for the LLM based test and 860 documents for the Camelot based pipeline evaluation.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This study evaluates the reliability of information extraction approaches from KRS documents using three strategies: LLM only, Hybrid Deterministic - LLM (regex + LLM), and a Camelot based pipeline with LLM fallback. Experiments were conducted on 140 documents for the LLM based test and 860 documents for the Camelot based pipeline evaluation, covering four study programs with varying data in tables and metadata. Three 12 - 14B LLM models (Gemma 3, Phi 4, and Qwen 2.5) were run locally using Ollama and a consumer grade CPU without a GPU. Evaluations used exact match (EM) and Levenshtein similarity (LS) metrics with a threshold of 0.7. Although not applicable to all models, the results show that the hybrid approach can improve efficiency compared to LLM only, especially for deterministic metadata. The Camelot based pipeline with LLM fallback produced the best combination of accuracy (EM and LS up to 0.99 - 1.00) and computational efficiency (less than 1 second per PDF in most cases). The Qwen 2.5:14b model demonstrated the most consistent performance across all scenarios. These findings confirm that integrating deterministic and LLM methods is increasingly reliable and efficient for information extraction from text based academic documents in computationally constrained environments.

Related papers

• FusionFactory: Fusing LLM Capabilities with Multi-LLM Log Data [60.09659670497899]
  Large language models (LLMs) have a diverse landscape of models, each excelling at different tasks.<n>This diversity drives researchers to employ multiple LLMs in practice, leaving behind valuable multi-LLM log data.<n>We argue that practical fusion must meet two essential requirements: (1) compatibility with real-world serving scenarios (e.g., local and API-based serving), and (2) flexibility to operate at different stages of the LLM pipeline to meet varied user needs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T17:58:02Z)
• Evaluating the Use of LLMs for Documentation to Code Traceability [3.076436880934678]
  Large Language Models can establish trace links between various software documentation and source code.<n>We create two novel datasets from two open-source projects (Unity Catalog and Crawl4AI)<n>Results show that the best-performing LLM achieves F1-scores of 79.4% and 80.4% across the two datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-19T16:18:53Z)
• Enhancing LLM Code Generation with Ensembles: A Similarity-Based Selection Approach [6.93983229112122]
  We propose an ensemble approach for large language models (LLMs) in code generation.<n>For voting, we compute syntactic and semantic similarity using CodeBLEU and behavioral equivalence.<n>We show through experiments that our ensemble approach consistently outperforms standalone LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T04:38:56Z)
• Latent Factor Models Meets Instructions: Goal-conditioned Latent Factor Discovery without Task Supervision [50.45597801390757]
  Instruct-LF is a goal-oriented latent factor discovery system.<n>It integrates instruction-following ability with statistical models to handle noisy datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T02:03:08Z)
• LLM2: Let Large Language Models Harness System 2 Reasoning [65.89293674479907]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited impressive capabilities across a myriad of tasks, yet they occasionally yield undesirable outputs.<n>We introduce LLM2, a novel framework that combines an LLM with a process-based verifier.<n>LLMs2 is responsible for generating plausible candidates, while the verifier provides timely process-based feedback to distinguish desirable and undesirable outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-29T06:32:36Z)
• LLM-TOPLA: Efficient LLM Ensemble by Maximising Diversity [7.945893812374361]
  We introduce the focal diversity metric to capture the diversity-performance correlation among component LLMs of an ensemble. We develop a diversity-optimized ensemble pruning algorithm to select the top-k sub-ensembles from a pool of $N$ base LLMs. Our pruning method recommends top-performing LLM subensembles of size $S$, often much smaller than $N$.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T22:31:15Z)
• LLMEmbed: Rethinking Lightweight LLM's Genuine Function in Text Classification [13.319594321038926]
  We propose a simple and effective transfer learning strategy, namely LLMEmbed, to address this classical but challenging task. We perform extensive experiments on publicly available datasets, and the results show that LLMEmbed achieves strong performance while enjoys low training overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T03:46:59Z)
• MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents [62.02920842630234]
  We show how to build small fact-checking models that have GPT-4-level performance but for 400x lower cost. We do this by constructing synthetic training data with GPT-4, which involves creating realistic yet challenging instances of factual errors. For evaluation, we unify datasets from recent work on fact-checking and grounding LLM generations into a new benchmark, LLM-AggreFact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T17:59:10Z)
• More Samples or More Prompts? Exploring Effective In-Context Sampling for LLM Few-Shot Prompt Engineering [35.086135550672864]
  We propose In-Context Sampling (ICS) to produce confident predictions by optimizing the construction of multiple ICL prompt inputs. An in-depth evaluation with three data similarity-based ICS strategies suggests that these strategies can further elevate LLM's performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T11:02:49Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• MLLM-DataEngine: An Iterative Refinement Approach for MLLM [62.30753425449056]
  We propose a novel closed-loop system that bridges data generation, model training, and evaluation. Within each loop, the MLLM-DataEngine first analyze the weakness of the model based on the evaluation results. For targeting, we propose an Adaptive Bad-case Sampling module, which adjusts the ratio of different types of data. For quality, we resort to GPT-4 to generate high-quality data with each given data type.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-25T01:41:04Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.