Abstract
Extraction pipelines ask language models for JSON that follows a schema, and the schema can set a minimum number of list entries. We ask what models do when the document holds fewer items than that minimum. Under a preregistered plan, we test eight open-weight models on 558 real documents from nine annotated datasets, with six more models on hosted services as a reference. Three findings stand out. First, models treat the count as a target: a minimum shown in the schema, but not enforced, raises the share of lists longer than the true count from 34.5% to 55.4%. Second, the padding is hard to catch, because most added entries are real text taken from the document; about half of them pass a check that each entry occurs in the source. Third, common fixes help only partly: a line saying fewer items are fine removes the effect on average but misses more true items, a count in prose ("up to k") also raises over-counting, an "N/A" option under an enforced minimum still leaves half the lists padded, and re-asking with the validation error makes padding far more common. We release the code, answer lists and run records at this https URL
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30997
