Recently developed pre-trained text-and-layout models (PTLMs) have shown remarkable success in multiple information extraction tasks on visually-rich documents (VrDs). However, despite achieving extremely high performance on benchmarks, their real-world performance falls short of expectations. Owing to this issue, we investigate the prevailing evaluation pipeline to reveal that: (1) The inadequate annotations within benchmark datasets introduce spurious correlations between task inputs and labels, which would lead to overly-optimistic estimation of model performance. (2) The evaluation solely relies on the performance on benchmarks and is insufficient to comprehensively explore the capabilities of methods in real-world scenarios. These problems impede the prevailing evaluation pipeline from reflecting the real-world performance of methods, misleading the design choices of method optimization. In this work, we introduce EC-FUNSD, an entity-centric dataset crafted for benchmarking information extraction from visually-rich documents. This dataset contains diverse layouts and high-quality annotations. Additionally, this dataset disentangles the falsely-coupled segment and entity annotations that arises from the block-level annotation of FUNSD. Using the proposed dataset, we evaluate the real-world information extraction capabilities of PTLMs from multiple aspects, including their absolute performance, as well as generalization, robustness and fairness. The results indicate that prevalent PTLMs do not perform as well as anticipated in real-world information extraction scenarios. We hope that our study can inspire reflection on the directions of PTLM development.

Existing evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) on static benchmarks is vulnerable to data contamination and leaderboard overfitting, critical issues that obscure true model capabilities. To address this, we introduce LLMEval-Fair, a framework for dynamic evaluation of LLMs. LLMEval-Fair is built on a proprietary bank of 220k graduate-level questions, from which it dynamically samples unseen test sets for each evaluation run. Its automated pipeline ensures integrity via contamination-resistant data curation, a novel anti-cheating architecture, and a calibrated LLM-as-a-judge process achieving 90% agreement with human experts, complemented by a relative ranking system for fair comparison. An 30-month longitudinal study of nearly 60 leading models reveals a performance ceiling on knowledge memorization and exposes data contamination vulnerabilities undetectable by static benchmarks. The framework demonstrates exceptional robustness in ranking stability and consistency, providing strong empirical validation for the dynamic evaluation paradigm. LLMEval-Fair offers a robust and credible methodology for assessing the true capabilities of LLMs beyond leaderboard scores, promoting the development of more trustworthy evaluation standards.