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.
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
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 ↗Part of this file is printed above, under What the tool returned. Show the whole file
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
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.
| ✗ | Found: Neither math markup nor a fallback was present; the equations were flattened into prose. |
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.
Repeated page furniture. The output body repeats the running header, document identifier, and page-number footer three times each.
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.
How this scenario is graded
How we decide Pass, Fail and Not gradable. The same rules apply to every tool tested on this scenario.
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.
- 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.
| Level | Name | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmark | Converting a complex PDF into clean Markdown with a hosted API → | 12 scenarios · 13 tools |
| Capability | Equations & Mathematical Notation → | |
| Scenario | A document containing mathematical equations → | |
| Tool | Reducto → |
Global scenario definition → · Global capability definition → · Reducto product page →
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.
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.
You run the same kind of test against your own setup and get the same behaviour.
Agree →Yours behaves differently. Tell us what you got, with a screenshot if you have one.
Disagree →Something here is wrong — a reference value, a transcription, a grade.
Report an issue →Tell us what changed and we schedule a rerun of the failing test case. The old result stays as history.
Vendor notice →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.
File fingerprints (SHA-256)
A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.