PaperScope: A Multi-Modal Multi-Document Benchmark for Agentic Deep Research Across Massive Scientific Papers
Organizations: Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China · Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, China
Abstract
Leveraging Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to accelerate frontier scientific research is promising, yet how to rigorously evaluate such systems remains unclear. Existing benchmarks mainly focus on single-document understanding, whereas real scientific workflows require integrating evidence from multiple papers, including their text, tables, and figures. As a result, multi-modal, multi-document scientific reasoning remains underexplored and lacks systematic evaluation. To address this gap, we introduce PaperScope, a multi-modal multi-document benchmark designed for agentic deep research. PaperScope presents three advantages: (1) Structured scientific grounding. It is built on a knowledge graph of over 2,000 AI papers spanning three years, providing a structured foundation for research-oriented queries. (2) Semantically dense evidence construction. It integrates semantically related key information nodes and employs optimized random-walk article selector to sample thematically coherent paper sets, thereby ensuring adequate semantic density and task complexity. (3) Multi-task evaluation of scientific reasoning. It contains over 2,000 QA pairs across reasoning, retrieval, summarization, and problem solving, enabling evaluation of multi-step scientific reasoning. Experimental results show that even advanced systems such as OpenAI Deep Research and Tongyi Deep Research achieve limited scores on PaperScope, highlighting the difficulty of long-context retrieval and deep multi-source reasoning. PaperScope thus provides a rigorous benchmark alongside a scalable pipeline for constructing large-scale multi-modal, multi-source deep research datasets.
Figures & tables
| Benchmarks | Avg. Papers | Avg. Pages | Cross-Page | Multi-Modal | Multi-Doc | Capability | Open Form | Agent |
| LSDU Benchmark | ||||||||
| DocVQA | - | 1 | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | U | ✗ | ✗ |
| ChartQA | - | 1 | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | U | ✗ | ✗ |
| InfoVQA | - | 1 | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | U | ✗ | ✗ |
| Charxiv | - | 1 | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | U | ✗ | ✗ |
| ArxivQA | - | 1 | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | U | ✗ | ✗ |
| Category | Sub-Task | Num |
| Multi-Doc Reasoning Task | Figure-table-chart comparison | 200 |
| Figure-table-chart reasoning | 200 | |
| Formula reasoning | 200 | |
| Algorithm reasoning | 200 | |
| Full paper reasoning | 200 | |
| Topic Induction Task | Implicit topic induction | 200 |
| Agent Type | Model | Reasoning | Induction | Summary | Solution | Score |
| LLM-based ReAct | WebWatcher 32B | 4 | 0 | 46.74 | 26.78 | 18.70 |
| OpenAI 4o-mini | 6 | 25.49 | 53.26 | 22.1 | 23.74 | |
| Gemini-2.5-flash-thinking | 7 | 13.33 | 38.40 | 29.71 | 19.32 | |
| OpenAI GPT-5.1 | 0 | 0 | 42 | 51.84 | 17.78 | |
| Gemini 2.5 pro | 3 | 7.02 | 47.54 | 40.39 | 20.50 | |
| GLM 4.5V | 0 | 0 | 37.32 | 32.45 | 14.44 |
| Setting | Combinations (Uniqueness) | Max Quality Score | Interpretation |
| (a) Walk Length ( ) — finding the semantic sweet spot (with ) | |||
| 2 | 60.33 | Too Short: Fails to escape local nodes. | |
| (Default) | 10,000 (Max) | 1,564.19 | Optimal: Best balance of diversity and efficiency. |
| 10,000 (Max) | 26,430.99 | Diminishing Returns: Deep links but introduces noise. | |
| - | - | Divergence: Paths drift too far, failing to converge. | |
| (b) Bias Probability ( ) — exploration vs. exploitation (with ) | |||
Appendix figures & tables21 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Corpus Split | #Documents | Source Venues | #QA Pairs |
| Corpus-A | 500 | 5 conferences | 1100 |
| Corpus-B | 1500 | 5 conferences | 1100 |
| Test Corpus | 202 | 5 conferences | 200 |
| 1 Doc | 2 Docs | 3 Docs | 4 Docs | 5+ Docs | |
| 200 | 200 | 400 | 200 | 1400 |
| Statistic | Graph-Test | Graph-Docs 500 | Graph-Docs 1500 |
| #Nodes | 30962 | 31348 | 85152 |
| #Edges | 1990449 | 1907081 | 12735443 |
| Density | 0.0042 | 0.0039 | 0.0025 |
| Diameter | 3 | 4 | 8 |
| Avg. Degree | 128.57 | 121.67 | 125.81 |
| Avg. Path Length | 2.041 | 2.17 | 4.14 |
| Stage | Time Complexity | Space Complexity |
| Random Walk | ||
| Aggregation | ||
| Combination Filter | Linear in output |
| Task Type | Pearson ( ) | Spearman ( ) | P-value |
| Summary | 0.6175 | 0.6072 | |
| Solution | 0.6385 | 0.6263 |
| Model | Full Score | Text-only | Drop (%) |
| WebWatcher 32B | 4 | 1 | 75.0% |
| Gemini 2.5 pro | 3 | 1 | 66.7% |
| Kimi k2 | 12 | 3 | 75.0% |
| MiroThinker-v1.0-30B | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
| OpenAI o3 (Deep Res) | 13 | 3 | 76.9% |
| Grok 4 | 36 | 5 | 86.1% |
| Component | Configuration |
| GPUs | 8 H100 |
| Inference Engine | vLLM |
| Max retries | 10 |
| Max excute time | 2h30mins |
| Max tokens | 128000 |
| Top p | 0.95 |
| Model | Max Score | Min Score | Macro Avg. |
| OpenAI o3 deep research | 79 | 35 | 59.15 |
| kimi-k2 | 73 | 11 | 49.85 |
| Grok-4 | 65 | 32 | 48.27 |
| Gemini-2.5-pro | 51.5 | 19 | 40.39 |
| DR Tulu-8B | 51 | 0 | 38.71 |
| Qwen3-VL | 59 | 25 | 37.38 |
| Model | Explicit Topic | Implicit Topic | Macro Avg. |
| deepseek-V3.1 | 26.67 | 25.93 | 26.32 |
| OpenAI 4o-mini | 18.52 | 33.33 | 25.49 |
| kimi-k2 | 20 | 29.17 | 24.07 |
| Grok-4 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Gemini-2.5-flash-thinking | 13.33 | 13.33 | 13.33 |
| Qwen3-VL | 16.67 | 10 | 13.33 |
| Task | Gemini-2.5 | GPT-5.1 | MM-r1 | Tulu-8b | Miro-30B |
| Reasoning | |||||
| Algorithm | 5 | 0 | 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Fig-Tab-Cha Com | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 |
| Fig-Tab-Cha Rea | 10 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Formula | 10 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 5 |
| Paper | 10 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Failure Mode | Definition | Count | Ratio |
| Extraction Error | Correct document retrieved, but unable to read precise numerical values from charts/tables. | 15 | 37.5% |
| Reasoning Error | Values extracted correctly, but multi-step calculation or logical inference fails. | 9 | 22.5% |
| Retrieval Failure | Fails to search (7.5%) or retrieves the wrong document (12.5%). | 8 | 20.0% |
| Hallucination | Outputs speculative guesses despite successful retrieval. | 6 | 15.0% |
| Context Limit | Key information truncated due to long multi-document concatenation. | 2 | 5.0% |
AI Agent Benchmarks
AI agent benchmarks measure how reliably autonomous systems plan, use tools, interact, and complete tasks across controlled and real-world settings.
See all 1,494 papers