SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2608.27466

PACE: Publisher-Adaptive Content Extraction via Agentic Automation

Abstract

Web content extraction is essential for reliable LLM data pipelines, yet existing methods often struggle to jointly satisfy accuracy, scalability, and adaptability. General-purpose extractors can be applied broadly, but they are often brittle on publisher-specific layouts and richer extraction targets such as metadata, images, and tables. Direct LLM-based extraction offers greater flexibility, but incurs substantial cost and latency at scale, while manually engineered publisher-specific parsers can achieve high accuracy but require substantial human effort to build and maintain. We introduce PACE, an agentic framework for learning publisher-specific extraction configurations from representative pages and user requirements. During training, PACE uses LLMs to analyze page structure and aggregate reusable extraction patterns. At inference time, the learned configurations instantiate a fixed deterministic extractor template, enabling scalable extraction without additional LLM calls. Experiments spanning article-body, metadata, and multimodal extraction show that PACE outperforms scalable non-manual baselines while approaching the quality of manually engineered publisher-specific parsers. PACE achieves stronger extraction of article text, metadata, images, and tables, demonstrating that agentic configuration learning can automate publisher-specific extraction for LLM-ready page representations beyond article text.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Zhanlin Liu, Munirathnam Srikanth. 2026-07-20. PACE: Publisher-Adaptive Content Extraction via Agentic Automation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27466

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

When Robots Mishear Us: Mapping the Safety Risks of Voice-Controlled Embodied AI

We investigate whether automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors in user input can lead to unsafe outputs from Embodied AI (EAI) models. We find that ASR errors can lead to harmful instructions being accepted and executed by EAI models, thereby reducing safety. We simulate ASR errors and combine them with existing safety benchmarks (SafeAgentBench and POEX) to evaluate how different errors affect embodied AI safety. We find that some of them preserve semantic structure but increase harmful ambiguity, while others weaken the model refusal behaviour and allow unsafe plans to be generated and executed. We show that in some cases automatic correction of ASR errors can reduce the risk, but this is not always effective. Overall, we show that ASR errors lead to significant safety risks for embodied AI.

cs.AI

Sleight of Word Benchmark: Can Language Models Notice If Their Own Output Was Tampered With?

The output of a Language Model can be tampered with \emph{while} the model is writing it. A simple test can thus be constructed by evaluating the model's perception of this external perturbation. In this spirit, a simple benchmark is built in which a single word is consistently substituted with another in the generation process. We call this method \emph{Sleight of Word}. Two distinct axes are measured: metrics that relate to the model's surprise, as well as an evaluation of the textual reaction for 19 different open-weight language models.

cs.CL

TCS-BENCH: Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Generative AI Theoretical Computer Science Research Ability

We introduce TCS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on research-level Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) proof generation. TCS-Bench consists of theorem-proving tasks from papers published at top theoretical computer science venues (STOC, FOCS, and SODA). Each task provides the necessary context to derive a self-contained proof for a target result. We evaluate state-of-the-art models on this benchmark. We verify the correctness of generated proofs via a verification agent, and further benchmark the verifier against human-expert proof judgements on a set of target statements and generated proofs pairs. Our reference verifier achieves over 90% accuracy on the expert labeled set.

cs.CL