Nemotron 3.5 Parse

# Fix list: Nemotron 3.5 Parse

From Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/nemotron-3-5-parse, the October 2026 research run, assessed 22 October 2026. Grade B, 66.5 out of 100.

This is everything the published grade says the listing lacks, the biggest possible gain to the total first. It comes from the reason given for each score, the checklist each category was scored against (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist), the provenance checks, the deductions, what we couldn't check and what the review panel asked for. A fix counts at the next check, once it's public.

For a coding agent working on Nemotron 3.5 Parse: work through the items below in the product, its docs and its public pages. Each category gives the reason for its score, with the points each checklist item earned, and the checklist itself, so the gap is the items that earned less than their points. Change the product, not the wording, and keep a note of what you changed and where it's published.

## 1. Reach, 50 out of 100, up to 12.5 more on the total

Why it scored 50: Memory earns the full 30, since the only build is a 2.52 GB F32 file that needs about 3 GB with the fifth added. Runtimes score 0. Transformers runs it only through NVIDIA's remote code, and vLLM through NVIDIA's own plugin until its native support, merged on 21 October 2026, reaches a release; SGLang and llama.cpp have nothing for it, and Ollama and LM Studio couldn't be checked. Builds score 0, as NVIDIA publishes no quantised build. Terms get 10 because OpenMDW-1.1 is permissive with nothing added but isn't OSI-approved. Download gets 10 for an ungated repository, and hosted too 0, with no inference provider mapped.

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reach):

Whether an agent can run it, and where.

- 0 to 30, memory. The smallest build from the publisher or a runtime's own library that keeps 4-bit precision or better, at its file size plus a fifth for the runtime and a working context. 30 for 16 GB or less, 25 for 24 GB, 20 for 32 GB, 15 for 64 GB, 10 for what fits our reference machine (the GPU share of 128 GB of unified memory), 5 for 256 GB, 0 above.
- 0 to 25, runtimes. 5 for each of llama.cpp, Ollama, vLLM, SGLang, LM Studio and Hugging Face Transformers that runs the architecture in a released version, from the runtime's own code, library or documentation. A publisher's fork or an unreleased branch doesn't count. 25 at most.
- 0 to 15, builds from the publisher. 15 for quantised builds at two precisions or more (FP8, 4-bit, GGUF), 10 for one, 0 when only other people's quantisations exist.
- 0 to 15, terms of use. 15 for an OSI-approved licence with nothing added, 10 for a custom licence that lets anyone use it commercially for free below a threshold or under a use policy, 5 for research or non-commercial use only, 0 for no licence or unclear terms.
- 0 to 10, download. 10 when the files download with no account and no terms to accept, 5 for a click-through that needs an account, 0 when a person approves each request.
- 5, hosted too. The publisher's own API serves it, or at least two inference providers do, so an agent without the hardware can still call it.

When our reference-machine runs start, speed on that machine (tokens per second and time to first token at the build that fits) joins Reach.

## 2. Risk, 60 out of 100, up to 8 more on the total

Why it scored 60: File safety gets 15, safetensors only but loaded with trust_remote_code in both documented runtimes. Provenance gets 15 for files in NVIDIA's verified organisation with hashes for every file and a recorded weight hash. Licence risk keeps 15, since OpenMDW-1.1 has none of the deductions. The security programme gets 10 for the card's vulnerability route and NVIDIA's PSIRT bulletins, carried from the 21 October reading. Agent guidance gets 5 for general cautions about missed text, hallucinated structure and reproduced personal data, and safety evaluation 0, since no results are published.

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-risk):

What could go wrong when you run it, and what the publisher has done about it. A higher score means less risk.

- 0 to 25, file safety. 25 for weights in safetensors or GGUF only, 15 when pickle files (.bin, .pt, .pth) sit beside them, 0 for pickle only. 10 off when the documented way to load it or to build its prompts runs code from the repository (`trust_remote_code`, or the publisher's scripts in place of a template).
- 0 to 15, provenance. 10 when the files come from the publisher's own organisation, the one its site or docs link to, and 5 for a checksum on every file.
- 0 to 20, safety evaluation. 20 when results are published and someone other than the publisher ran them or can rerun them, 10 for the publisher's own results, 0 for none.
- 0 to 15, guidance for agent use. 15 for documented prompt-injection guidance or an instruction hierarchy the model was trained to follow, 10 for a statement of what its trained refusals cover and the safeguards to add around it, 5 for general cautions, 0 for none.
- 0 to 15, licence risk. 15 to start, 5 off for each of these, a use policy or field-of-use limits beyond the law, terms the licensor can change or revoke, a revenue or user threshold, and a licence that changed without a dated note or whose link is broken. Not below 0.
- 0 to 10, a security programme. 5 for a way to report a flaw (security.txt, a disclosure policy or a security contact), 5 for advisories handled in public.

When our reference-machine runs start, measured robustness (prompt injection with AgentDojo, over-refusal with XSTest) joins Risk.

## 3. Capability, 83 out of 100, up to 6 more on the total

Why it scored 83: From 5 benchmark results the publisher submitted (counted at half weight) in 5 areas, each scored as its share of the way from the benchmark's floor to the best result any model has on the same leaderboard. By area, Content faithfulness 95, Tables 90, Visual grounding 84, Semantic formatting 78, Charts 68. Publisher-submitted results count at half weight, and numbers that appear only on the publisher's card don't count.

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-capability):

How well the model does on the benchmarks that matter to an agent. We don't average a publisher's own numbers into a grade. A result counts in full when we ran it on our reference machine, or when an independent party ran it and published the method (the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard, Artificial Analysis, Epoch AI's Benchmarking Hub, the SWE-bench and Terminal-Bench leaderboards, the Open ASR Leaderboard and others that run models themselves). A result the publisher submitted to such a leaderboard counts at half weight. A number that appears only on the publisher's card is shown on the listing as the publisher's claim and doesn't count.

Each result is scored as its share of the way from the benchmark's floor (chance for multiple choice, zero for a pass rate) to the best result any model, open or closed, has on the same leaderboard and setting on the day we read it. A model that matches the best model anywhere scores 100 on that benchmark. For an error rate such as word error rate, lower is better and the scale runs the other way, and where the leaderboard gives no floor the rate is read against the best model's, so twice the best model's error rate scores 50. Speed as a multiple of real time (RTFx) runs from about 1 to over 20,000, so it's read on a log scale from real time to the fastest model. On the MTEB leaderboard, where most models score between 0.5 and 0.75, the floor is the median of every model the same tab lists, and its results count at half weight because MTEB doesn't say who ran them and most are submitted with the model. An arena rating (Elo) isn't a ratio, so its floor is 400 points below the best model on that arena, the gap at which the better model wins about ten games in eleven. Where a model has results at several settings (reasoning effort, say), its best one counts, because that's the setting an agent would run.

The results group into areas, each weighted within the category.

- Tool calling and agent tasks, 35 (BFCL, τ²-bench, Terminal-Bench and agent suites like them)
- Coding, 20 (SWE-bench Verified, LiveCodeBench, Aider Polyglot)
- Reasoning and knowledge, 20 (GPQA Diamond, MMLU-Pro, Humanity's Last Exam, composite indexes that publish their components)
- Instruction following, 15 (IFEval, IFBench)
- Long context, 10 (RULER, LongBench and long-context retrieval tests)

A speech model is read on its own areas, recognition accuracy (word error rate on the Open ASR Leaderboard's sets, 60) and speed (real-time factor, 40) for speech to text, and intelligibility and speaker similarity (Seed-TTS-eval, the Open TTS Leaderboard, 70) and speed (30) for text to speech. A publisher's own converted copy of the same weights (Qwen's -hf builds, say) counts as the same checkpoint. An embedding model is read on retrieval (60) and the other MTEB task types, classification, clustering, reranking and similarity among them (40), from the MTEB leaderboard. A vision model adds an image area (MMMU, ChartQA, DocVQA or OCRBench) at 20, and the others shrink to fit. A document parser, a model that turns page images into structured text, is read on the five things ParseBench measures, tables, charts, content faithfulness, semantic formatting and visual grounding, 20 each, from ParseBench's leaderboard or another independent document benchmark that publishes the same dimensions (since 22 October 2026). One leaderboard gives all five at once, so a parser's confidence counts independent sources, and a row the publisher submitted (or that the leaderboard copied from the publisher's card) counts at half weight with low confidence. LlamaIndex, which runs ParseBench, also sells LlamaParse, a parser the same benchmark ranks, and the listing says so.

Capability is the weighted mean of the areas with results, and needs results in at least two areas (one for a speech, embedding or document-parsing model). With less than that it's pending for that listing, its weight is shared across the other four, and the total is capped at 61, so a model nobody has benchmarked independently can't reach B, and every model with results ranked B or better stays above it. The listing says so. Until 21 October 2026 the cap was 69, which put models nobody had benchmarked above ones that had been.

## 4. Documentation and upkeep, 59 out of 100, up to 4.1 more on the total

Why it scored 59: The card with its subcards covers intended use, limitations, architecture, parameters and the evaluated languages, and misses a context length and a cut-off (14). Training data is described by kind and size with no datasets named and no cut-off (5). The files changed on 21 October 2026 (20). Nobody has asked anything yet, so responsiveness reads as none answered (0). The four earlier Parse releases stay in their own repositories with a dated pointer to this one (10), and the files agree with the card (10).

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-upkeep):

- 0 to 20, the model card. Intended use, limitations, architecture, parameters, context length, languages and knowledge cut-off. 20 for all seven, 3 off for each that's missing.
- 0 to 20, training data. 20 for the data published or listed with sources and sizes, 15 for a data card that names the sources or the mix, the cut-off and the filtering, 10 for a general description with a cut-off, 5 without one, 0 for none.
- 0 to 20, the last change to the files, the template or the reference code. 20 within 30 days, 15 within 90, 10 within 180, 5 within a year, 0 older.
- 0 to 20, responsiveness. The publisher's replies to the 40 most recent questions and reports in the repository's discussions or issues. 20 for most, 10 for some, 5 for a few, 0 for none.
- 0 to 10, version policy. 10 for earlier versions kept in their own repositories with a dated note when one is replaced, 5 for earlier versions kept without notes or a first release, 0 when files were replaced in place without a note.
- 0 to 10, file health. 10 when config, tokenizer, template and card agree and no report of a broken file waits without a reply, 5 when one does, 0 when the files contradict the card.

## 5. Agent interface, 70 out of 100, up to 3 more on the total

Why it scored 70: Read for a document parser, the tool-calling, trained tool calling and structured-output lines stand for what it takes and returns. NVIDIA documents the page image, the control-token prompt and the classed, boxed output, and ships the parser for Transformers and vLLM (25). It was trained for one page per request (10). Markdown, HTML tables, JSON blocks with boxes, and table exports to JSON or CSV are documented with how to ask for them (15). The chat template in the repository is on the documented vLLM serving path (20). Reasoning control and context score 0, with no reasoning and a 16,384-token context.

The checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-interface):

What a model and a developer need to talk to it. Speech, image and other models with no chat interface read the tool-calling and structured-output lines for what the model takes and returns (voices, timestamps, streaming, typed outputs), and the note says how.

- 0 to 20, the chat template. 20 for a template in the repository (Jinja, in the tokenizer config or its own file), 10 when the prompt format is only given as code you run.
- 0 to 25, the tool-calling format. 25 when the publisher documents how tools are declared and how calls come back, with the parser to use in a named runtime, 10 when only the template or a runtime's own recipe says it.
- 0 to 20, tool calling the model was trained for. 20 with several calls in one turn, 10 for one call at a time.
- 0 to 15, structured output. 15 when JSON or JSON Schema output is documented for the model with how to ask for it, 5 when the card claims it without saying how.
- 10, reasoning control. Thinking that can be turned off or budgeted per request, with where the reasoning text comes back.
- 0 to 10, context. 10 for 128K tokens or more trained, 5 for 32K to 127K. Context reached only by scaling the position encoding counts one band down.

## What we couldn't check

What we couldn't read counted as absent. Publishing it on a page a plain HTTP fetch can read (not only in a browser) lets the next check count it.

- Unchecked, Ollama's library and LM Studio's catalogue, since WebFetch to their sites wasn't approved in this session; runtimes score them as absent
- Unchecked, whether NVIDIA's API catalogue (build.nvidia.com or a NIM) serves this checkpoint; hosted too is scored as absent
- The security programme's 10 rests on the NVIDIA PSIRT reading made for Nemotron 3.5 ASR Streaming on 21 October 2026, as nvidia.com couldn't be fetched today
- Terms read OpenMDW-1.1 as a custom licence (10) because it isn't OSI-approved, as for the other OpenMDW listings
- Runtimes will gain 5 when a vLLM release carries the native RadioMBartPrefixForCausalLM support merged on 21 October 2026, though the documented load still uses trust_remote_code
- No independent ParseBench run was found. LlamaIndex's leaderboard row copies the card's numbers (its commit says so), so Capability is likely pending and confidence is low

## Weaknesses

- Loading runs the publisher's Python with trust_remote_code, in Transformers and in vLLM through NVIDIA's plugin
- Not in any released version of the six named runtimes yet, and no quantised build from NVIDIA
- One page per request with a 16,384-token context, so documents are parsed page by page
- Its ParseBench result is NVIDIA's own run; LlamaIndex's leaderboard row copies the card's numbers
- No safety results, training data without named datasets or a cut-off, and nobody has asked anything in its repository yet

## What costs an agent a turn today

The notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need.

- Quickest local run, Python 3.12 with `pip install "transformers==5.14.1" "torchvision==0.26.0" "timm==1.0.22"`, then `AutoModel.from_pretrained("nvidia/Nemotron-3.5-Parse", trust_remote_code=True, dtype=torch.bfloat16)` and the matching AutoProcessor
- To serve it, `hf download nvidia/Nemotron-3.5-Parse --local-dir nemotron-parse`, `pip install ".[vllm,client]" "vllm>=0.25.0,<0.33"` in that folder, then `vllm serve . --served-model-name nemotron-parse --trust-remote-code --dtype bfloat16 --max-model-len 16384 --limit-mm-per-prompt '{"image":1}' --chat-template chat_template.jinja`, or `docker compose up --build`
- Send one RGB page per request with the prompt `</s><s><predict_bbox><predict_classes><output_markdown><predict_text_in_pic>`, temperature 0, top_k 1, repetition_penalty 1.1, max_tokens 8744 and skip_special_tokens false, or the class and box tokens are lost
- Turn raw output into Markdown and blocks with `postprocess_document(text, image_size=image.size)` from the repository's postprocessing.py; pass table_format json, json_hierarchical or csv for tables
- For the card's headline accuracy use `nemotron-parse --image-dir pages --mode triple --triple-regions union`; double pass gives most of the gain at higher throughput
- Boxes are normalised to the page content; scale x by the image width and y by its height
- Render PDFs to images first (the ParseBench bundle uses 150 DPI), and treat extracted text as untrusted before passing it to another model, since documents can carry instructions

## What the review panel asked for

- native runtime support
- document injection guidance
- dated release notes
- move to native vLLM support
- an independent ParseBench run
- a stated memory figure

## When it's done

Send what changed and where it's published as a dispute (https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes, or `POST https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/contact` with `"kind": "dispute"`). Disputes are answered in public, and the listing is checked again by the same checklist. Paying for an audit or a listing claim changes nothing here.