DocSage: An Information Structuring Agent for Multi-Doc Multi-Entity Question Answering
Organizations: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Abstract
Multi-document Multi-entity Question Answering inherently demands models to track implicit logic between multiple entities across scattered documents. However, existing Large Language Models (LLMs) and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) frameworks suffer from critical limitations: standard RAG's vector similarity-based coarse-grained retrieval often omits critical facts, graph-based RAG fails to efficiently integrate fragmented complex relationship networks, and both lack schema awareness, leading to inadequate cross-document evidence chain construction and inaccurate entity relationship deduction. To address these challenges, we propose DocSage, an end-to-end agentic framework that integrates dynamic schema discovery, structured information extraction, and schema-aware relational reasoning with error guarantees. DocSage operates through three core modules: (1) A schema discovery module dynamically infers query-specific minimal joinable schemas to capture essential entities and relationships; (2) An extraction module transforms unstructured text into semantically coherent relational tables, enhanced by error-aware correction mechanisms to reduce extraction errors; (3) A reasoning module performs multi-hop relational reasoning over structured tables, leveraging schema awareness to efficiently align cross-document entities and aggregate evidence. This agentic design offers three key advantages: precise fact localization via SQL-powered indexing, natural support for cross-document entity joins through relational tables, and mitigated LLM attention diffusion via structured representation. Evaluations on two MDMEQA benchmarks demonstrate that DocSage significantly outperforms state-of-the-art long-context LLMs and RAG systems, achieving more than 27% accuracy improvements respectively.
Figures & tables
| Method | Accuracy | |||
| Comparison | Statistics | Relationship | Overall | |
| All sets | ||||
| GPT-4o | 0.262 | 0.353 | 0.407 | 0.338 |
| GPT-4o + RAG | 0.696 | 0.579 | 0.593 | 0.620 |
| GraphRAG | 0.618 | 0.558 | 0.593 | 0.586 |
| StructRAG | 0.678 | 0.588 | 0.573 | 0.612 |
| Method | Spotlight Locating | Comparison | Clustering | Chain of Reason | Overall | |||||
| All sets | ||||||||||
| GPT-4o | 76.79 | 0.65 | 50.98 | 0.29 | 45.04 | 0.10 | 57.46 | 0.27 | 54.17 | 0.26 |
| GPT-4o + RAG | 64.04 | 0.44 | 41.85 | 0.26 | 35.37 | 0.03 | 41.62 | 0.19 | 43.05 | 0.18 |
| GraphRAG | 22.49 | 0.00 | 22.91 | 0.01 | 37.52 | 0.03 | 45.34 | 0.23 | 33.44 | 0.07 |
| StructRAG | 68.07 | 0.40 | 63.36 | 0.36 | 60.71 | 0.14 | 53.27 | 0.18 | 60.56 | 0.23 |
| DocSage (Ours) | 85.06 | 0.84 | 73.28 | 0.43 | 64.43 | 0.42 | 73.67 | 0.57 | 68.29 | 0.53 |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Method | Comparison | Statistics | Relationship | Overall |
| DocSage (Full) | 0.934 | 0.908 | 0.812 | 0.892 |
| w/o Structured Extraction | 0.752 | 0.687 | 0.635 | 0.691 |
| w/o Schema-Guided Reasoning | 0.821 | 0.794 | 0.703 | 0.773 |
| w/o Schema Discovery | 0.845 | 0.775 | 0.724 | 0.781 |
| w/o CLEAR (Logic Checking) | 0.901 | 0.862 | 0.783 | 0.849 |
| w/ Passive Schema Discovery | 0.916 | 0.879 | 0.795 | 0.863 |
| Method | Spotlight Locating | Comparison | Clustering | Chain of Reason | Overall |
| DocSage (Full) | 85.06 | 73.28 | 64.43 | 73.67 | 68.29 |
| w/o Schema Discovery | 73.14 | 58.92 | 51.87 | 60.45 | 59.10 |
| w/o Structured Extraction | 78.35 | 64.11 | 55.23 | 66.88 | 63.64 |
| w/o Schema-Guided Reasoning | 80.02 | 67.45 | 58.91 | 68.52 | 65.73 |
| w/o CLEAR (Logic Checking) | 82.57 | 70.33 | 61.05 | 70.89 | 66.71 |
| w/ Passive Schema Discovery | 83.41 | 71.16 | 62.78 | 72.05 | 67.35 |