AI 中文总结
针对文档编译引擎选择缺乏共享框架的问题，该研究构建了Engine-Transfer-Bench基准，通过多维度测试分析不同引擎性能，发布相关工具作为共享基础设施。
AI 中文摘要
目前尚无用于在文档编译引擎（包括pdfLaTeX、XeLaTeX、LuaLaTeX、Tectonic、Typst及pandoc PDF后端）间进行选择的共享框架。本文提出Engine-Transfer-Bench（ETB）：包含1784份开放文档、4项覆盖可靠性、延迟、文本一致性及失败情况的任务、固定测试工具，以及按主机标记的多操作系统结果。在GitHub Actions上（每个主机在macOS、Ubuntu和Windows系统下共进行4211次编译），Tectonic的成功率在0.9个百分点内保持稳定（96.3%-97.2%），而经典TeX Live风格引擎的成功率则因发行版策略（Ubuntu apt、MiKTeX自动安装或macOS BasicTeX）差异达12-20个百分点。在702份便携式LaTeX文档上，被测引擎成功率达100%，使延迟成为主要选择因素；失败集中于107个引擎特定模板。在ETB中，失败属于架构层面问题，涉及字体、布局和资源，而非已配置主机上缺失的包。对S_pdf文本一致性指标的50对验证，在真实内容分歧上达到94%的精度。本文发布ETB、ETB-Porta（一款推荐器和可移植性闸门）以及公共跨操作系统测试工具作为共享基础设施。
英文摘要
There is no shared framework for selecting among document compilation engines (pdfLaTeX, XeLaTeX, LuaLaTeX, Tectonic, Typst, and pandoc PDF backends). We present Engine-Transfer-Bench (ETB): 1,784 open documents, four tasks covering reliability, latency, text consistency, and failures, a pinned harness, and host-tagged multi-OS results. On GitHub Actions (N=4,211 compiles per host across macOS, Ubuntu, and Windows), Tectonic success is stable within 0.9 percentage points (96.3-97.2%), whereas classic TeX Live-style engines vary by 12-20 percentage points according to distribution policy (Ubuntu apt, MiKTeX auto-install, or macOS BasicTeX). On 702 portable LaTeX documents, the tested engines succeed at 100%, making latency the primary selection factor; failures concentrate in 107 engine-specific templates. Within ETB, failures are architectural, involving fonts, layout, and assets, rather than missing packages on a provisioned host. A 50-pair validation of the S_pdf text-consistency metric achieves 94% precision for real content divergence. We release ETB, ETB-Porta, a recommender and portability gate, and a public cross-OS harness as shared infrastructure.
Comments8 pages in ACM two-column format. Dataset and replication package: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21831918
