Schema-Guided Hierarchical Information Extraction and Semantic Evaluation Using Generative AI

We present a schema-based framework for extracting complex, structured information from unstructured text documents using generative AI, followed by automated semantic evaluation of the extracted information against a gold standard. The schema, serving as an information model encoding domain knowledge, provides a unified, systematic, and consistent framework for extraction of hierarchical, nested information, with attributes of variable cardinality, and subsequent evaluation of the results. Information extraction from a document is performed in a single call to the model, in zero-shot mode. In the evaluation step, we introduce a path-based semantic matching algorithm to align the nested, variable-cardinality attributes in the extracted results with those in the gold standard. We use generative AI for semantic comparison of the extracted and gold standard values of an attribute, and introduce a rubric to classify the result of the comparison, according to domain-specific considerations, as an exact, semantic, useful, or non-match. We were able to extract 12 out of 14 attributes with an F1 score of $>$90\% from documents published by the health technology assessment organisation NICE, using the generative AI model Claude Opus 3. The time needed to extract the attributes from a document was $\sim$30 times lower than the time taken by a human domain expert. We further demonstrate generalisability of this framework across different generative AI models and transferability across different HTA organisations and languages.

Beyond Compilation: Evaluating Faithful Natural-Language-to-Lean Statement Formalization

Theorem-proving benchmarks evaluate proof search against fixed formal statements, but natural-language-to-Lean formalization must generate the formal statement itself. In this setting, compilation is only a validity check: a Lean declaration may type-check while omitting hypotheses, changing domains, or expressing a vacuous claim. We study faithful statement formalization as both an evaluation problem and a bottleneck-attribution problem. On a 400-entry graduate-level benchmark spanning real analysis, complex analysis, topology, and algebra, our protocol combines Lean compilation, cross-model semantic judging, and human expert calibration. The resulting picture is different from compile-rate evaluation: a full tool-augmented agent reaches 89.5% compilation but only 60.5% consensus faithfulness, exposing a 29.0-point compile-pass but consensus-unfaithful gap. Targeted human audits support the metric as a conservative decision boundary: across available case-level audits, 96.0% of consensus-positive outputs are human-confirmed faithful, while 82.4% of compile-pass consensus-negative outputs are human-confirmed semantic failures. Under this metric, existing one-shot formalizer models and prover-oriented Lean models remain low, suggesting that formal validity, proof-oriented Lean competence, and faithful statement generation should be reported separately. We then use a full $2^3$ factorial design to decompose three recurring interventions in formalization pipelines: parametric expert drafting, Mathlib/context search, and Lean elaboration feedback. Elaboration feedback is the largest validity intervention, but it also exposes a larger compile-pass semantic-failure bucket; search mainly improves grounding and selectivity; and fine-tuned drafting is largely substitutable in this tool stack once feedback and grounding are available.

SLU-2K: A Question-Based Benchmark for Semantic Evaluation of Sign Language Translation

Sign Language Translation (SLT) is typically evaluated with surface-form metrics such as BLEU and ROUGE, which reward lexical overlap but do not directly measure whether a translation preserves the meaning of the source sign sequence. This is in contrast with the final objective of integrating SLT in assistive technology. In this work, we shift the focus from Sign Language Translation (SLT) to Sign Language Understanding (SLU), with particular emphasis on semantic understanding. Specifically, we evaluate systems based on their ability to correctly recover, from the input video, key semantic aspects of the original sentence, such as actions taking place and facts about people and objects. To enable this evaluation systematically, we propose SLU-2K, a dataset of 2,350 closed-ended video question-answer pairs based on the popular PHOENIX-2014T and CSL-Daily datasets. To obtain SLU-2K, we propose and extensively evaluate an automated data generation pipeline which produces questions across 7 categories, namely actions, locations, numbers, objects, people, time, and weather conditions. We show the potential of SLU-2K by evaluating popular Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) and two representative state-of-the-art systems, MMSTL and SpaMo. Our results show that MLLMs reach near-random performance, highlighting the need for a more systematic integration of SLU in current AI systems. Furthermore, state-of-the-art translation systems carefully fine-tuned on in-domain data still exhibit a substantial semantic gap, with results ranging from 56.7% to 75.2%. These findings suggest that current SLT evaluation protocols overestimate true understanding and that future progress should be measured not only by fluency and n-gram overlap, but also by semantic correctness. Code, prompts, and benchmark files are available at https://github.com/ZenoTsT/SLU-2K