llmsherpa VS grobid

To get good RAG performance you will need a good chunking strategy. Simply getting all the text is not good enough and knowing the boundaries of table, list, paragraph, section etc. is helpful.

Great work by llamaindex team. Also feel free to try https://github.com/nlmatics/llmsherpa which takes into account some of the things I mentioned.

I wrote about split points and the need for including section hierarchy in this post: https://ambikasukla.substack.com/p/efficient-rag-with-docume...

All this is automated in the llmsherpa parser https://github.com/nlmatics/llmsherpa which you can use as an API over this library.

Interesting concept. Grobid tries to do the same https://github.com/kermitt2/grobid

I would suggest using grobid - a pipeline for extracting scientific PDFs into a common XML format which can be easily parsed. Grobid has quite a nice mature REST API that I've used in some of my own projects. It parses references and matches them to their DOI using the CrossRef API with a reported 95% F1 score. This should make your job pretty simple as far as I can tell - all you'd need to do is run your papers through grobid and then build a citation graph by comparing document DOIs.

Just use science-parse or GROBID. They have been designed for that exact reason.

- I ended up using Grobid, which converts the PDF to a very detailed XML format. The format is not a word processing format though, but a format specifically for representing scientific documents. I don't know, if it would, for example, contain tags about bold or italicized text. The tool is working really well, but since you probably cannot use the output XML format directly, it will need some postprocessing, which would be relatively simple with XML parsing libraries.