Automatic Inter-document Multi-hop Scientific QA Generation

Despite rapid progress in large language models (LLMs), current QA benchmarks still overlook the core challenge of real-world scientific information seeking: synthesizing multimodal evidence scattered across multiple documents and structural formats. Existing QAs remain narrow in scope, relying on unimodal text and short-span reasoning that fail to capture the complexity of real information-seeking. We introduce DocHop-QA, a benchmark of 11,379 instances for evaluating multimodal, multi-document, multi-hop scientific QA. Built from publicly available PubMed articles, DocHop-QA incorporates textual passages, tables, and layout cues, enabling cross-document inference without explicit hyperlinks. To scale realistic QA construction, we develop an LLM-driven generation pipeline grounded in 11 scientific reasoning concepts, producing diverse and coherent question-answer pairs. To highlight the utility and versatility of the dataset, we propose a task-driven evaluation framework spanning four settings, including generative answering, multimodal evidence integration and structured index prediction. Experiments show that current models struggle with DocHop-QA's long-context, multi-evidence demands, establishing it as a rigorous testbed for advancing next-generation scientific QA systems.

Scientific literature is increasingly used as a knowledge source for language models, retrieval-augmented generation systems, and research assistants, but answering research questions from papers requires more than fluent generation. A reliable system must identify the relevant papers, locate the concrete evidence that supports the answer, and produce a response that is faithful to that evidence. We present LitTraceQA, a benchmark for literature-grounded question answering over scientific papers. Given a research question and a metadata pool of papers, a system must return three connected outputs: canonical paper identifiers, supporting evidence locations, and answers in one or more requested formats, including free-form text, multiple-choice answers, and structured tables. LitTraceQA targets evidence types common in scientific reading: tables, figures, text spans, equations or algorithms, and citation contexts. The public development split contains 55 examples, including 26 hidden-source single-paper questions and 29 multi-paper questions, and provides gold papers, evidence annotations, and answers for local validation. We also analyze a larger final annotation collection with 4,978 unique-question records over 4,859 unique gold papers. By evaluating paper retrieval, evidence grounding, and answer accuracy separately, LitTraceQA provides a testbed for scientific QA systems that produce verifiable answers rather than unsupported summaries.

Large language models are increasingly used to assist scientific reading, but existing evaluation methods often fail to detect whether answers are supported by verifiable citations. We introduce ResearchQA, a benchmark of 6,211 single-paper question-answer pairs from 494 open-access papers spanning eight domains and four question types: lookup, comprehension, multi-hop, and adversarial. ResearchQA is designed for citation-grounded evaluation: it permits multiple valid supporting passages for a claim and rewards grounded refusal when the source paper does not support an answer. We evaluate eight leading closed- and open-weight models in a citation-grounded chat-with-paper setting using a deterministic citation matcher and an LLM-based rubric evaluator. Citation-based metrics separate systems more clearly than LLM-evaluator scores: section coverage and citation accuracy vary substantially across models, while evaluator scores remain tightly compressed. We further find that open-weight models approach the best closed-model citation accuracy while achieving 3 to 6 times lower per-example latency. We release the benchmark, evaluation harness, and evaluator prompt.