An Answer is just the Start: Related Insight Generation for Open-Ended Document-Grounded QA

Document-based question answering (QA) increasingly includes abstract questions that require synthesizing scattered information from long documents or across multiple documents into coherent answers. However, this setting is still poorly supported by existing benchmarks and evaluation methods, which often lack stable abstract references or rely on coarse similarity metrics and unstable head-to-head comparisons. To alleviate this issue, we introduce ASTRA-QA, a benchmark for AbSTRAct Question Answering over documents. ASTRA-QA contains 869 QA instances over academic papers and news documents, covering five abstract question types and three controlled retrieval scopes. Each instance is equipped with explicit evaluation annotations, including answer topic sets, curated unsupported topics, and aligned evidence. Building on these annotations, ASTRA-QA assesses whether answers cover required key points and avoid unsupported content by directly scoring topic coverage and curated unsupported content, enabling scalable evaluation without exhaustive head-to-head comparisons. Experiments with representative Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) methods spanning vanilla, graph-based, and hierarchical retrieval settings show that ASTRA-QA provides reference-grounded diagnostics for coverage, hallucination, and retrieval-scope robustness. Our dataset and code are available at https://xinyangsally.github.io/astra-benchmark.

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.

While modern question answering (QA) systems excel on clean, schema-aligned corpora, real-world knowledge is rarely so neatly packaged. Answering questions over enterprise and scientific data lakes requires systems to navigate heterogeneous, weakly structured collections of tables, passages, and linked metadata. Current benchmarks abstract away this noisy discovery process, failing to evaluate end-to-end performance. To bridge this gap, we introduce LakeQuest, a human-validated benchmark of 9,846 QA pairs designed to evaluate the end-to-end retrieve-and-synthesize pipeline over realistic data lakes. LakeQuest spans three diverse domains (AI/ML metadata, retail banking, and multimodal biomedical drug information) and pairs every question with exact, modality-aware evidence pointers. By isolating source discovery from cross-modal synthesis, LakeQuest exposes critical failure modes in modern QA systems. Our baseline evaluations, including standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and agentic tool-use methods, reveal that high-quality retrieval does not guarantee correct reasoning. Systems consistently struggle with relation chaining in metadata graphs, policy grounding in bank ledgers, and joint tabular QA in biomedical contexts, highlighting the need for robust discovery and faithful cross-file composition mechanisms in future agentic QA systems.