DocScope: Benchmarking Verifiable Reasoning for Trustworthy Long-Document Understanding

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly advanced document understanding, yet current Doc-VQA evaluations score only the final answer and leave the supporting evidence unchecked. This answer-only approach masks a critical failure mode: a model can land on the correct answer while grounding it in the wrong passage -- a critical risk in high-stakes domains like law, finance, and medicine, where every conclusion must be traceable to a specific source region. To address this, we introduce CiteVQA, a benchmark that requires models to return element-level bounding-box citations alongside each answer, evaluating both jointly. CiteVQA comprises 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs spanning seven domains and two languages, averaging 40.6 pages per document. To ensure fidelity and scalability, the ground-truth citations are generated by an automated pipeline-which identifies crucial evidence via masking ablation-and are subsequently validated through expert review. At the core of our evaluation is Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), which credits a prediction only when the answer and the cited region are both correct. Auditing 20 MLLMs reveals a pervasive Attribution Hallucination: models frequently produce the right answer while citing the wrong region. The strongest system (Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview) achieves an SAA of only 76.0, and the strongest open-source MLLM reaches just 22.5. Ultimately, towards trustworthy document intelligence, CiteVQA exposes a reliability gap that answer-only evaluations overlook, providing the instrumentation needed to close it. Our repository is available at https://github.com/opendatalab/CiteVQA.

Long Document Visual Question Answering (LongDocVQA) requires Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to locate, integrate, and reason over heterogeneous document elements distributed across multiple pages. Existing approaches, including end-to-end MLLMs, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines, and document agents, often lack explicit mechanisms to represent and verify how grounded evidence is progressively composed during reasoning, limiting both answer accuracy and traceability. In this paper, we cast LongDocVQA as an explicit evidence graph reasoning problem rather than implicit answer prediction. To this end, we propose DocTrace, a hierarchical framework that progressively performs evidence localization, structured document parsing, and evidence graph reasoning to enable explicit evidence provenance. To effectively learn these capabilities, we develop a two-stage training framework: joint Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) first initializes evidence localization and graph reasoning abilities, followed by task-specific Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with dedicated rewards to further optimize these capabilities. Extensive experiments on MMLongBench-Doc, LongDocURL, and SlideVQA demonstrate that DocTrace consistently outperforms both existing open-source baselines and proprietary MLLMs. Compared with the Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct backbone, DocTrace achieves absolute improvements of 14.4, 11.3, and 11.7 points on the three benchmarks, respectively. Beyond competitive performance, DocTrace constructs traceable evidence graphs with explicit node-level provenance, enabling transparent and verifiable reasoning for long document understanding.

Real-world document tasks often ask professionals to answer questions from annual reports, regulations, clinical guidelines, and technical manuals that span hundreds or thousands of pages. Some questions also require comparing related reports. Reliable long-document understanding is therefore a prerequisite for using LLMs in compliance, clinical, financial, and engineering workflows, where decisions must be traceable to specific evidence pages and the cost of an unsupported answer is high -- yet most existing benchmarks still measure short-context or single-page QA. We introduce XL-DocBench, a fully human-verified benchmark for extra-long document understanding, with 1,519 retained questions from six professional domains and contexts up to 2,303 pages. XL-DocBench goes beyond page-level lookup. 1,103 examples (72.6%) use multiple evidence pages. The final set also includes 556 questions (36.6%) that use tables, charts, or figures, and 165 questions (10.9%) that require evidence from multiple documents. Each question has one of twelve reasoning labels, expert-annotated evidence pages, a typed verification rule, and an answer format, including 218 None-answer cases. We build the benchmark with a tree-guided synthesis pipeline followed by artifact filters and full verification by 194 human experts. By coupling extra-long professional contexts with page-level evidence and typed rules, XL-DocBench fills a gap left by prior single-page, short multi-page, or text-only long-context benchmarks, and lets future work attribute system failures to retrieval, evidence use, or rule following rather than to a single leaderboard score. The results show that current systems still struggle with long contexts, multi-page evidence, and structured reasoning over professional documents.