Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
To resolve the representational disconnect between LLM-extracted evidence strings and underlying PDF text layers caused by line breaks, Unicode variants, and formatting noise, the authors design an alignment framework that decouples text normalization from provenance tracking. This architecture allows robust sequence matching against normalized text while preserving character-level geometry for exact visual bounding-box rendering. Across a benchmark of 1,020 chemistry papers, the framework achieves a 92.6% quote-level automatic localization rate, more than doubling standard text search (43.6%) and dramatically outperforming precomputed bounding-box baselines (19.1%).
Standard PDF text search fails to locate over half of extracted scientific claims due to layout and encoding artifacts, but decoupling normalized sequence alignment from character provenance drives evidence grounding accuracy to 92.6%.
Scientific information-extraction systems often return a claim with an evidence string, which users must locate in the original PDF. This is challenging because the extracted evidence and PDF text layer are different representations: line wrapping, Unicode variants, superscripts, citation markers, and fragmented items alter text sequences and geometry. We present a source-preserving alignment framework: normalize text for robust matching while preserving provenance for accurate localization. It aligns evidence with normalized page text, maps matches back to source-character spans, and renders only their geometry. When exact alignment fails, line-break-aware token alignment recovers supported spans while excluding unmatched noise. Experiments on 1,020 chemistry papers show that the framework achieves a 92.6\% quote-level automatic localization rate, compared with 43.6\% for text search and 19.1\% for a precomputed bounding-box baseline. Component ablation confirms distinct contributions from normalization and approximate token alignment, while human verification assesses the visual correctness of returned highlights. Overall, these results demonstrate that reliable evidence verification requires robust matching and precise localization within a shared source-preserving alignment representation.