GDP.pdf: Benchmarking Grounded Multimodal Reasoning over Professional PDF Documents

We introduce Office Comprehension Bench (OCB), the first public benchmark to jointly evaluate LLM systems on Word, Excel, and PowerPoint comprehension over native file formats (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx) and their variants. OCB consists of two tracks. File Fidelity Q&A tests structural and visual perception of office artifacts - tables, charts, embedded images, formulas, and app-specific elements such as headers, speaker notes, and named ranges. Domain Q&A tests expert-level reasoning grounded in real-world industry documents across 12 professional domains, with queries requiring multi-step analysis and synthesis across documents. Each reference answer is decomposed into atomic, binary-gradable claims, and an ensemble of LLM judges scores responses against each claim independently. Even the strongest frontier system in its default reasoning mode reaches only about 59.3% on Domain Q&A; increasing thinking depth within a tier does not move performance materially, while moving to a higher product tier yields modest gains. We release the dataset, evaluation tooling, judge prompt, and a public leaderboard.

Evaluating whether Multimodal Large Language Models can produce trustworthy, verifiable reasoning over long, visually rich documents requires evaluation beyond end-to-end answer accuracy. We introduce DocScope, a benchmark that formulates long-document QA as a structured reasoning trajectory prediction problem: given a complete PDF document and a question, the model outputs evidence pages, supporting evidence regions, relevant factual statements, and a final answer. We design a four-stage evaluation protocol -- Page Localization, Region Grounding, Fact Extraction, and Answer Verification -- that audits each level of the trajectory independently through inter-stage decoupling, with all judges selected and calibrated via human alignment studies. DocScope comprises 1,124 questions derived from 273 documents, with all hierarchical evidence annotations completed by human annotators. We benchmark 6 proprietary models, 12 open-weight models, and several domain-specific systems. Our experiments reveal that answer accuracy cannot substitute for trajectory-level evaluation: even among correct answers, the highest observed rate of complete evidence chains is only 29%. Across all models, region grounding remains the weakest trajectory stage. Furthermore, the primary difficulty stems from aggregating evidence dispersed across long distances and multiple document clusters, while an oracle study identifies faithful perception and fact extraction as the dominant capability bottleneck. Cross-architecture comparisons further suggest that activated parameter count matters more than total scale. The benchmark and code will be publicly released at https://github.com/MiliLab/DocScope.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved strong performance on structured visual understanding tasks such as chart and document question answering. However, existing benchmarks typically evaluate these domains in isolation, leaving underexplored a key capability: whether models can use textual context to determine how chart evidence should be selected, interpreted, and aggregated. We introduce DocHop, a benchmark for integrated chart--context reasoning in document-style images. In DocHop, the document narrative specifies multi-step compositional constraints, while charts provide the corresponding data values. Questions are grounded on a semantic reference label defined in the narrative, requiring models to resolve target entities from context before aggregating evidence across multiple charts. To enable systematic evaluation, we construct DocHop via a stochastic logic-first generation pipeline with controllable reasoning depth and visual density, covering 2,074 examples across six task categories. Experiments on a wide range of proprietary and open-source MLLMs show a substantial gap to human performance: annotators achieve over 90% accuracy, while the best model reaches only 62.83%. Reasoning-enhanced models consistently show improved results, but performance degrades as reasoning complexity increases. Overall, DocHop provides a controlled testbed for challenging multi-hop document reasoning.