📝 SummarXiv

Abstract

PDFs remain the dominant format for scholarly communication, despite significant accessibility challenges for blind and low-vision users. While various tools attempt to evaluate PDF accessibility, there is no standardized methodology to evaluate how different accessibility assessment approaches perform. Our work addresses this critical gap by introducing a novel benchmark dataset of scholarly PDFs with expert-validated accessibility annotations across seven criteria (alternative text quality, logical reading order, semantic tagging, table structure, functional hyperlinks, color contrast, and font readability), and a four-category evaluation framework with standardized labels (Passed, Failed, Not Present, Cannot Tell) to systematically assess accessibility evaluation approaches. Using our evaluation framework, we explore whether large language models (LLMs) are capable of supporting automated accessibility evaluation. We benchmark five LLMs, which demonstrate varying capabilities in correctly assessing different accessibility criteria, with GPT-4-Turbo achieving the highest overall accuracy (0.85). However, all models struggled in correctly categorizing documents with Not Present and Cannot Tell accessibility labels, particularly for alt text quality assessment. Our qualitative comparison with standard automated checkers reveals complementary strengths: rule-based tools excel at technical verification, while LLMs better evaluate semantic appropriateness and contextual relevance. Based on our findings, we propose a hybrid approach that would combine automated checkers, LLM evaluation, and human assessment as a future strategy for PDF accessibility evaluation.