Beyond Logprobs: A Multi-Signal Confidence Engine for LLM-Based Document Field Extraction
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In high-stakes document processing pipelines, including financial reconciliation, compliance verification, and procurement automation, an LLM extraction that is silently wrong is more dangerous than one that is visibly absent. The central challenge is not extraction accuracy alone but reliable confidence estimation: knowing, field by field, whether an extraction can be trusted for automation or deferred to human review. Token-level log-probabilities, verbalized confidence, and multi-sample self-consistency all collapse toward all-positive behaviour at practical thresholds, offering no reliable separation between trustworthy and untrustworthy extractions. We present ExtractConf, a cross-domain, field-agnostic confidence engine that grounds confidence estimation in two structurally different readings of the same document. A field-guided Hunter call extracts each field under schema-slot completion pressure; a document-guided Mapper call scans holistically and surfaces values grounded in document content. This asymmetry yields different failure modes: Hunter hallucinates values for absent fields, while Mapper misses visually non-salient ones. Their disagreement is independently informative. ExtractConf fuses cross-call disagreement, LLM-internal uncertainty, OCR, image quality, and spatial layout into a classifier requiring no domain-specific rules or retraining. On DocILE (55-field invoices, 26% failure rate), it achieves 0.928 ROC AUC and reduces selective prediction risk by 70% over logprob-mean. At 80% coverage, accuracy reaches 99.1%, enabling a practical human-in-the-loop workflow. Zero-shot transfer to CORD receipts achieves 0.858 AUC; lightweight Lasso recalibration reduces ECE by 89% and Brier by 43%, confirming the signals generalise across document domains.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jun 2026.
Builds on
14 of 29 references.
References · 14
- 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
- 2023Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 1,729
- 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,282
- 2019Measuring Calibration in Deep Learningcited by 446
- 2019SelectiveNet: A Deep Neural Network with an Integrated Reject Optioncited by 350
- 2019Addressing Failure Prediction by Learning Model Confidencecited by 186
- 2023Quantifying Uncertainty in Answers from any Language Model and Enhancing their Trustworthinesscited by 122
- 2023DocILE Benchmark for Document Information Localization and Extractioncited by 58
- 2023Self-Verification Improves Few-Shot Clinical Information Extractioncited by 52
- 2023LMDX: Language Model-based Document Information Extraction and Localizationcited by 37
- 2026Real-Time Trustworthiness Scoring for LLM Structured Outputs and Data Extractioncited by 3
2 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Can You Trust the Confidence? ConfBench for Vision-Language Models on Document Extraction
- 2026From Unreliable to Usable: Decomposing Failure Modes and Confidence Signals in LLM Entity Extraction - Evidence from Cyber Threat Intelligence
- 2026Fidelity Is Not Enough: Dispatch-Level Instrumentation for Agentic Datasheet Extraction
- 2026RaV-IDP: A Reconstruction-as-Validation Framework for Faithful Intelligent Document Processing
- 2026ExtractBench: A Benchmark for Schema-Guided Enterprise Document Extraction
- 2026Beyond Accuracy: Robustness, Cost, and Governance Trade-offs for Vision-Language Models in Templated Document Extraction
- 2026TrustDABench: Benchmarking Reliability and Robustness of LLMs for Structured Data Analysis
- 2026VERDI: Single-Call Confidence Estimation for Verification-Based LLM Judges via Decomposed Inference