Urgent.News

What's breaking now, across thousands of outlets.

AI

olmOCR-bench on Hugging Face: Three Rows Use a Different Average, and One Moves From 13th to 7th or 19th

TL;DR On November 8, 2026 the Hugging Face olmOCR-bench board lists 24 rows from 24 repos, all higher-is-better pass rates, 0 verified. 18 rows sit on a repo's main branch and 6 come from pull requests that are still open, all opened by one account. The board's overall is the plain average of eight columns (seven test categories plus a baseline column) for 15 of the 24 rows. Three rows, ranks 13,…

On November 8, 2026, the Hugging Face olmOCR-bench leaderboard presented a peculiar ranking of 24 repositories based on their OCR performance. Out of these, 18 rows were derived from the main branches of the repositories, while the remaining six came from open pull requests submitted by a single user account.

The overall ranking was determined by averaging eight columns, encompassing seven test categories and a baseline column, for a total of fifteen repositories. However, three rows - ranked 13, 20, and 23 - utilized a distinct average that excluded the 'headers_footers' category. Their respective notes explicitly indicated this deviation.

Additionally, six more rows remained unverifiable due to various reasons: one was gated, another only provided a mean value, and four contained fewer than eight columns. In the case of rank 13, repository 'LightOnOCR-2-1B', the overall score of 83.2 was derived from eight columns averaging 75.24. Removing the 'headers_footers' category shifted its position to the 7th place among 22 rows, whereas including it placed the row at the 19th position among 21 rows. Consequently, rank 13 presented a blend of both scenarios.

The leaderboard demonstrated a stark contrast in rankings across the board, with rank 1 remaining consistent across multiple recomputations, and rank 2 surviving all but a test-count weighting. Rank 1 excelled in three out of the eight columns, occupying the 16th position among 17 when considering the baseline. Moreover, six different repositories led the eight columns individually.

It is important to note that the dataset card accompanying the olmOCR-bench also provided its own table of results, encompassing a range of ± 0.9 to 1.2 for the Overall scores. Therefore, when assessing the top positions on the leaderboard, it is prudent to consider this range.

Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.

Read the original at dev.to →

More in AI

AI Can Write Code, But What About Us?

🇮🇩 Originally written in Indonesian. This English version was AI-assisted and adapted for a more natural reading experience. It is not a literal translation. Open Link Introduction Just yesterday.

  • AI tools are essential for developers to understand, not just rely on
  • Developers must control AI usage, aligning with goals and evaluating results
  • Adaptation to AI is necessary; developers should incorporate it into workflows

Reproducible LLM Evals: Record the Run, Not Just the Score

Your eval suite scored 87% on Tuesday and 84% on Thursday. Nobody changed the prompt. Was it the model, the dataset, the grader, or noise?

  • Record the entire run, not just the score
  • Temperature does not guarantee repeatability
  • Measure and report the noise in generation

Copilot Borrows Joule's Eyes: How the SAP–Microsoft Integration Actually Gates Your Data

We're two PhD students who run SAP AI Lab — one of us researches ML systems, the other enterprise information systems. Independent blog, no endorsement from SAP or Microsoft, and we like asking the…

  • SAP–Microsoft integration enables bidirectional flow for Copilot.
  • Copilot's data access limited to user's SAP authorization level.
  • Licensing requires both Microsoft 365 Copilot seats and SAP Joule entitlements.

More from Sunday 8 November →