HFEPX · Eval paper review

Padding to k: A Minimum Count in the Schema Makes Open-Weight Models Pad Their Extraction Lists

Abhishek Barali, Aayush Paudel

Published

Oct 22, 2026

Citations

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

15% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Oct 22, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Abstract-only analysis, low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal

Not explicit

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation signal

Weak or implicit

Validate from full paper

Usefulness for eval research

0/100

Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Extraction pipelines ask language models for JSON that follows a schema, and the schema can set a minimum number of list entries. We ask what models do when the document holds fewer items than that minimum. Under a preregistered plan, we test eight open-weight models on 558 real documents from nine annotated datasets, with six more models on hosted services as a reference. Three findings stand out. First, models treat the count as a target: a minimum shown in the schema, but not enforced, raises the share of lists longer than the true count from 34.5% to 55.4%. Second, the padding is hard to catch, because most added entries are real text taken from the document; about half of them pass a check that each entry occurs in the source. Third, common fixes help only partly: a line saying fewer items are fine removes the effect on average but misses more true items, a count in prose ("up to k") also raises over-counting, an "N/A" option under an enforced minimum still leaves half the lists padded, and re-asking with the validation error makes padding far more common. We release the code, answer lists and run records at https://github.com/AbhishekBarali/padding-to-k

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.