We ran a full evaluation of tomd against docling on the 38 PDF papers in the 2026-02 pre-Croydon mailing. Full report with side-by-side markdowns: https://github.com/cppalliance/paperlint-eval/blob/main/tomd-eval/report.md
tomd retains 476 code block fences across the corpus vs docling's 1,270 (2.7x gap). This is the primary blocker for adoption in the paperlint evaluation pipeline, where evidence quotes must be findable as substrings in the extracted text.
Specific papers where code is affected:
- P3984R0 — code examples rendered as bold inline text instead of fenced blocks. Compare docling.
- P3181R1 — multi-thread code examples fragmented into inline code spans. Compare docling.
- P3596R0 — 226 fences in docling, 4 in tomd.
- P4003R0 — 196 fences in docling, 4 in tomd. Code identifiers wrapped in :::wording blocks.
- P3844R4 — 54 fences in docling, 0 in tomd.
Fixing this would substantially close the gap for pipeline adoption.
We ran a full evaluation of tomd against docling on the 38 PDF papers in the 2026-02 pre-Croydon mailing. Full report with side-by-side markdowns: https://github.com/cppalliance/paperlint-eval/blob/main/tomd-eval/report.md
tomd retains 476 code block fences across the corpus vs docling's 1,270 (2.7x gap). This is the primary blocker for adoption in the paperlint evaluation pipeline, where evidence quotes must be findable as substrings in the extracted text.
Specific papers where code is affected:
Fixing this would substantially close the gap for pipeline adoption.