top of page

Solving the Precision Problem in IDP: Key Improvements & Refinements for High-Accuracy Automation

Writer's picture: Rich MedinaRich Medina

If your IDP model isn’t improving, it’s probably getting worse. Precision in intelligent document processing (IDP) isn’t a one-and-done fix—it’s an ongoing process that needs constant refinement. In my last post, I covered ways to improve accuracy and reduce errors. Now, I want to take it further by looking at key refinements that make IDP models more reliable over time.


Precision vs. Accuracy: What Really Matters?

A lot of people mix up precision and accuracy. Precision is about reducing false positives—making sure the system isn’t flagging incorrect extractions. Accuracy, on the other hand, measures overall correctness.

If your precision is off, your automation creates more problems than it solves. The key is to optimize precision without sacrificing recall—too strict, and you miss key data; too loose, and you flood workflows with errors.


Model Drift: Why Good IDP Models Go Bad

IDP models don’t stay great forever. Over time, documents change, language shifts, and business rules evolve. That’s where model drift kicks in, and if you’re not tracking it, your system starts making mistakes.

There are three types of drift to watch out for:

  • Concept Drift – When the meaning of key document elements changes (think new legal clauses or compliance requirements).

  • Data Drift – When the structure of documents shifts (like suppliers updating their invoice formats).

  • Label Drift – When the way data is categorized evolves (for example, if invoices that were once labeled "Finance" are now classified under "Billing").

Without continuous monitoring and updates, automation will become less reliable over time.


Hybrid AI Models: A Smarter Approach, but Not Perfect

Mixing rule-based logic with machine learning is a great way to improve IDP accuracy, but it’s not a fix-all. Hybrid AI models work well when structured and unstructured documents are involved, but they come with trade-offs.


Where Hybrid AI Helps:
  • Rule-based AI is effective for structured documents that follow predictable patterns.

  • Machine learning models (transformers, BERT, CNNs) perform better with unstructured documents.

  • Ensemble approaches reduce errors by switching between methods based on confidence scores.


Where It Falls Short:
  • Rule-based systems don’t adapt well to evolving document structures, leading to more false negatives.

  • ML models need large labeled datasets and continuous retraining to stay accurate.

  • A poorly tuned hybrid model can introduce more errors if it leans too heavily on one method.

Hybrid AI works, but only if you actively manage it and fine-tune it over time.


Human-in-the-Loop (HIL): Making It Work Without Slowing Everything Down

HIL is crucial for refining AI decisions, but it can become a bottleneck if not used efficiently. The goal isn’t to manually review everything but to catch errors before they create bigger issues.


How to Use HIL Effectively:
  • Set confidence thresholds so humans only review low-certainty extractions.

  • Focus on high-risk documents (financial, legal, regulatory) where mistakes are costly.

  • Use active learning to improve AI over time, reducing reliance on human checks.

HIL should be an optimization tool, not a crutch for an underperforming model. The goal isn’t just catching errors—it’s feeding those corrections back into the AI so it gets smarter over time.


Synthetic Data: Useful, but Only If You Do It Right

Synthetic data is great for training IDP models, especially when real-world examples are limited. But if it’s not designed carefully, it can make models worse instead of better.


How to Avoid Synthetic Data Pitfalls:
  • Make sure the data reflects real-world variations—it shouldn’t be too "perfect."

  • Check that synthetic examples don’t introduce bias, leading to errors in deployment.

  • Tailor synthetic data to your industry’s needs instead of relying on generic templates.

For example, if you generate too many perfectly formatted invoices, your model might struggle with real-world variations like handwritten notes or missing fields. Done right, synthetic data strengthens IDP models. Done wrong, it just creates another set of problems.


Making IDP Strategies More Practical and Readable

A big takeaway from refining these strategies is that IDP has to be practical. If the approach is too rigid, overly technical, or doesn’t fit real workflows, it won’t stick. That’s why this follow-up clarifies a few things:

  • Precision vs. accuracy – why both matter, but precision keeps automation from causing more harm than good.

  • Model drift – why it happens and how to stop it from wrecking your IDP system.

  • Hybrid AI models – good in theory, but they still need hands-on management.

  • HIL – how to use it without slowing everything down.

  • Synthetic data – useful, but only if designed carefully.


Final Thoughts: Precision is an Ongoing Process

Getting IDP models to a high level of precision isn’t a one-time fix. If you’re not constantly improving, your automation will slowly degrade. Keeping an eye on drift, refining hybrid AI, and using HIL efficiently all play a role in making sure IDP stays reliable.

If you’re tackling these challenges, what’s been working for you? I’d love to swap insights and find better ways to improve IDP automation.

 

1 view0 comments

Comentários


bottom of page