← Selected Work

Research · Preprint

Cheap First, Ask the LLM Later?

Cost and Accuracy of Rule-Based, Native-PDF, and Text-Based LLM Extraction of Syllabus Deadlines

A benchmark of five ways to pull deadlines out of syllabus PDFs. Running cheap rules first used 57.8% fewer tokens but nearly halved accuracy.

public syllabi, 8 institutions
16
hand-checked deadlines
151
tokens with rules first
−57.8%
F1 score with rules first
0.66 → 0.37

Why I tested it

Parsing syllabi into a calendar worked quite accurately in GRYPH OS, our hackathon planner, so I expected a cheaper way of doing it to hold up too. The results surprised me a bit.

Problem

Student tools use AI to turn syllabus PDFs into calendars. A common way to save money is to run cheap rules first and call the AI only when the rules seem to fail. I tested whether that shortcut actually works.

Approach

Five extraction strategies, from sending the PDF straight to Gemini to regular expressions and date parsing, each run three times on 16 public syllabi from 8 institutions. Every prediction was scored against 151 deadlines checked by hand.

The hard part

The hardest part was figuring out five ways of doing it that made sense logically, and then finding more ways to get accurate results.

Results

The rule-first approach used 57.8% fewer tokens, but its F1 score fell from 0.66 to 0.37. Saving tokens cost almost half the accuracy.

The code, the labels and every prediction are public, and the paper is on Preprints.org with DOI 10.20944/preprints202610.2704.v1.