AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 29 September 2026

Can Reducto handle a document containing mathematical equations?

Reducto failed a document with mathematical equations: the returned Markdown contained no math markup and no fallback, and the equations were flattened into prose with missing symbols and substituted characters. This is the case: the source page shows set mathematics, while the output preserves only garbled lines instead of LaTeX, MathML, or an explicit fallback.

1 of 1 test case failed

Every test case in this scenario has a result.

Pass rate0%0 of 1 with a result
Coverage1 of 1test cases with a result
0PassNo test case passed.
1FailMissed at least one thing it was expected to do; the reason and proof are on the row.
0Not gradableEvery result here could be graded.
0UntestedEvery test case in this scenario has a result.
The pass rate is a summary. The evidence is the test case below: what we sent, what we checked, what the tool returned, and the proof.

The test case

Each test case is judged on its own: Pass, Fail, Not gradable, or Untested. The scenario result above counts this row.

Equations — math markup or honest fallbackFailEvidence
What we sent
InputDocument (PDF)
Three-page technical note whose page 2 contains typeset equations. From outside the graded run; shown for context, not graded.
Open the PDF ↗
Key momentsp. 2 ↗
What the tool returned
Markdown70 lines
Tarnbeck Institute of Hydrology

TIH/TN/18

# A one-dimensional model of tidal attenuation in the Braithe channel

Technical note TIH/TN/18 · January 2026

R. K. Sandiman and H. Vale

## 1 Introduction

The tide entering the Braithe is attenuated over the eleven kilometres between the bar and Braithe Bridge, and the attenuation is large enough to matter to anyone predicting water levels in the upper estuary. This note sets out the one-dimensional model the Institute has used since 2018, states the approximation on which the working formula rests, and compares the result with the gauge record at three stations.

Nothing here is new. The intention is to have the derivation, the assumptions and the coefficients in one place, because the formula has been quoted in Partnership papers without them.

## 2 Governing equations

Take the channel as a single reach of slowly varying cross-section and neglect lateral inflow. Conservation of mass gives

∂t + ∂Q ∂A ∂x = 0 (1)

where A is the cross-sectional area below the free surface and Q the discharge through it. Conservation of momentum, with friction represented in the Manning form, gives

до д an gn² QIQ
+ + gA + = 0 (2)
Ot дх дх AR4/3

in which is the surface elevation above mean sea level, n is Manning's coefficient, R the hydraulic radius R = A/P for wetted perimeter P, and g the acceleration due to gravity. The friction term is the only nonlinear one that matters over the range of interest.

## 3 Attenuation of the leading harmonic

For a channel of nearly uniform depth the leading semidiurnal harmonic decays close to exponentially with distance upstream, so that

n(x, t) = no e¯μx cos (@t-kx) (3)

with η0 the amplitude at the bar, ω the angular frequency of the harmonic, k the wavenumber and μ the
attenuation coefficient. Linearising the friction term by the Lorentz method and collecting terms gives

Page 1 of 3

Tarnbeck Institute of Hydrology

TIH/TN/18

ω χ 1/2 8 n² co
με x= (4)
C 2(1+x²) 3лh4 4/3

where c is the frictionless wave speed and h the mean depth. The second expression is the friction parameter; it is small in the lower reach and approaches unity above Harrowby Reach, which is where the exponential form begins to fail.

## 4 Application to the Braithe

Taking the mean depth as eleven metres below the bar and four metres at the bridge, with Manning's coefficient at the value fitted in 2018, the formula reproduces the observed amplitude at Vardenne Quay to within four per cent and at Harrowby Reach to within nine. At Braithe Bridge it overestimates the amplitude, and the discrepancy grows through the spring tides, which is the behaviour the friction parameter predicts.

A two-reach treatment with separate depths would probably remove most of the error at the bridge. It has not been attempted here because the gauge record above Harrowby Reach is too short to fit a second coefficient with any confidence.

## 5 Coefficients

Manning's coefficient is not constant with depth in a channel of this kind, and the single fitted value used above is a compromise. Fitting the 2018 record with a depth-dependent form gives

b
n(h) = n∞ + (5)
h113

with n∞ the deep-water value and b a bed constant. The fit is better in the lower reach and no better at the bridge, which suggests that the error there is not in the friction term at all.

The two constants were fitted to the 2018 record and have not been refitted since. Refitting on the four years now available would be worth doing; the Institute's expectation is that the deep-water value will move very little and the bed constant appreciably, because it is carrying the shallow reaches where the record has improved most.

## 6 Limitations

Copied from Proof 1 · Output file (Markdown), lines 1–70 · an excerpt; the link below opens the whole file

Open the Markdown file ↗
Proof 1Output file (Markdown)
Markdown output with equations flattened into prose. From outside the graded run; shown for context, not graded.
Part of this file is printed above, under What the tool returned. Show the whole file
Markdown98 lines
Tarnbeck Institute of Hydrology

TIH/TN/18

# A one-dimensional model of tidal attenuation in the Braithe channel

Technical note TIH/TN/18 · January 2026

R. K. Sandiman and H. Vale

## 1 Introduction

The tide entering the Braithe is attenuated over the eleven kilometres between the bar and Braithe Bridge, and the attenuation is large enough to matter to anyone predicting water levels in the upper estuary. This note sets out the one-dimensional model the Institute has used since 2018, states the approximation on which the working formula rests, and compares the result with the gauge record at three stations.

Nothing here is new. The intention is to have the derivation, the assumptions and the coefficients in one place, because the formula has been quoted in Partnership papers without them.

## 2 Governing equations

Take the channel as a single reach of slowly varying cross-section and neglect lateral inflow. Conservation of mass gives

∂t + ∂Q ∂A ∂x = 0 (1)

where A is the cross-sectional area below the free surface and Q the discharge through it. Conservation of momentum, with friction represented in the Manning form, gives

до д an gn² QIQ
+ + gA + = 0 (2)
Ot дх дх AR4/3

in which is the surface elevation above mean sea level, n is Manning's coefficient, R the hydraulic radius R = A/P for wetted perimeter P, and g the acceleration due to gravity. The friction term is the only nonlinear one that matters over the range of interest.

## 3 Attenuation of the leading harmonic

For a channel of nearly uniform depth the leading semidiurnal harmonic decays close to exponentially with distance upstream, so that

n(x, t) = no e¯μx cos (@t-kx) (3)

with η0 the amplitude at the bar, ω the angular frequency of the harmonic, k the wavenumber and μ the
attenuation coefficient. Linearising the friction term by the Lorentz method and collecting terms gives

Page 1 of 3

Tarnbeck Institute of Hydrology

TIH/TN/18

ω χ 1/2 8 n² co
με x= (4)
C 2(1+x²) 3лh4 4/3

where c is the frictionless wave speed and h the mean depth. The second expression is the friction parameter; it is small in the lower reach and approaches unity above Harrowby Reach, which is where the exponential form begins to fail.

## 4 Application to the Braithe

Taking the mean depth as eleven metres below the bar and four metres at the bridge, with Manning's coefficient at the value fitted in 2018, the formula reproduces the observed amplitude at Vardenne Quay to within four per cent and at Harrowby Reach to within nine. At Braithe Bridge it overestimates the amplitude, and the discrepancy grows through the spring tides, which is the behaviour the friction parameter predicts.

A two-reach treatment with separate depths would probably remove most of the error at the bridge. It has not been attempted here because the gauge record above Harrowby Reach is too short to fit a second coefficient with any confidence.

## 5 Coefficients

Manning's coefficient is not constant with depth in a channel of this kind, and the single fitted value used above is a compromise. Fitting the 2018 record with a depth-dependent form gives

b
n(h) = n∞ + (5)
h113

with n∞ the deep-water value and b a bed constant. The fit is better in the lower reach and no better at the bridge, which suggests that the error there is not in the friction term at all.

The two constants were fitted to the 2018 record and have not been refitted since. Refitting on the four years now available would be worth doing; the Institute's expectation is that the deep-water value will move very little and the bed constant appreciably, because it is carrying the shallow reaches where the record has improved most.

## 6 Limitations

Three limitations should be stated plainly. The first is the one-dimensional assumption, which fails where the channel divides above Harrowby Reach. The second is the neglect of the freshwater inflow, which is small in summer and not small after rain. The third is the linearisation itself, which is a poor approximation once the friction parameter approaches unity - that is, in exactly the reach where the model is least accurate.

The error measure quoted in the previous section is

Page 2 of 3

Tarnbeck Institute of Hydrology

TIH/TN/18

Mo - nm
ε = (6)
no

taken over the spring-neap cycle at each gauge, with no the observed amplitude and nm the modelled one. It is a crude measure and it flatters the model at the bar, where the amplitude is large and the absolute error is not.

None of this is an argument against using the formula, which is quick, transparent and good enough for the purposes the Partnership puts it to. It is an argument for quoting it with the reach and the tidal range attached, which the papers that quote it have not always done.

## References

Sandiman, R. K. (2018). Tidal propagation in the Braithe: a first fit. Tarnbeck Institute internal report TIH/IR/09.

Vale, H. and Croyde, P. (2021). The Harrowby Reach gauge, 2015 to 2020. Journal of Estuarine Hydrology 44, 218-31.

Prosser, A. (2009). Friction coefficients for the Braithe channel. Braithe Harbour Board, unpublished.

Page 3 of 3
Open the Markdown file ↗
Expected vs. Found
What this scenario evaluates

These are scenario-level criteria. Each test case's Expected and Found are listed separately.

  • Whether the equations remain represented as math rather than being flattened into ordinary prose.
  • Whether the mathematical structure is preserved well enough to stay readable and recoverable.
  • Whether any limitation is stated honestly through a clear fallback instead of silent corruption.
How this scenario is judged →
✗Found: Neither math markup nor a fallback was present; the equations were flattened into prose.
Why this result

The test checked whether the equations were preserved as math markup or clearly rendered another way. The returned Markdown showed neither, flattening the equations into prose.

Also observed on this row

Repeated page furniture. The output body repeats the running header, document identifier, and page-number footer three times each.

Tested by Chandresh Bisht · evidence dated 9 September 2026

Configuration and setup

How this tool was set up for the run and what the test needed in place. Each row is a fact from the run's records; a fact the records do not hold is left out, not guessed.

Software that produced the output
Reducto
Build or version
not exposed (server build not reported; server-default model)
Plan or tier
Standard self-serve plan
Model
not exposed (server build not reported; server-default model)
Surface
REST API
Set up before the run
A PDF containing mathematical equations was provided, and the complete PDF was converted to Markdown with the default pipeline in one pass.
parse pipeline
default parse pipeline
method
POST
graded page(s)
1-3
Tested
9 September 2026 · Chandresh Bisht

How this scenario is graded

How we decide Pass, Fail and Not gradable. The same rules apply to every tool tested on this scenario.

How results are decided

Each test case gets one result per tool: Pass, Fail or Not gradable. A test case we haven't run yet shows Untested. There are no partial results.

The rules
  • Pass: the tool did everything the test expected, and nothing it said contradicts the correct answer.
  • Fail: at least one expected behaviour clearly didn't happen; the row says which and quotes the tool.
  • Not gradable: our evidence couldn't settle the outcome (for example a record we needed is missing). It is never counted as a fail, and the row says what's missing.

Where this sits in the benchmark

This page is one cell of a larger study: one tool, one scenario. Only this benchmark's frame appears here.

History of this result

What has happened to this result since it was first published. Runs and grades are never overwritten: a retest or a re-grade publishes a new result and keeps the earlier one readable.

from the publication record
5 October 2026First publishedConverting a complex PDF into clean Markdown with a hosted API v1

Act on this result

Nothing filed here edits the run or the grade. A challenge opens a review, and a review can produce a new run or a re-grade — which becomes the current result and leaves this one in the history.

This matches what I see

You run the same kind of test against your own setup and get the same behaviour.

Agree →
This does not match

Yours behaves differently. Tell us what you got, with a screenshot if you have one.

Disagree →
Point out an issue

Something here is wrong — a reference value, a transcription, a grade.

Report an issue →
Request a retest

On a newer build, a larger dataset, or your own setup.

Request a retest →
We have fixed this

Tell us what changed and we schedule a rerun of the failing test case. The old result stays as history.

Vendor notice →
Filed against this evidenceNothing yet. Challenges, counter-evidence and fix notices appear here with their outcome, and stay on the page after they are resolved.
Cite this result
aidemos.com/benchmarks/pdf-to-markdown-apis/results/reducto/a-document-containing-mathematical-equations · 0 pass · 1 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-09-29

The same record is available as structured data through the AI Demos MCP server, with the counts, the coverage and every per-test-case reason carried as fields.

Verify the proof files

These files support this result. Open a file to inspect the original evidence.

Same content as Proof 1 ↗image/png · 202 KB
Input · Document (PDF) ↗application/pdf · 236 KB
File fingerprints (SHA-256)

A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.

Same content as Proof 15729b020744f8571430fb99d4ba35d9ae7f58cd64755addcfa54e7c0d05856cd
Proof 1 · Output file (Markdown)dba86353d3491929661a2867396374d560d395e91b148ca6a2b0ce61f33df6b7
Input · Document (PDF)f3d69b6d9d2191c5806a426fd4ea5e209dcd7cf693ad6abe67a5d18a014b9fd6