Text, Pixels, or Both? Evaluating Input Representations for Multimodal Document QA

Real-world documents combine text with tables, charts, photographs, and diagrams arranged in diverse layouts, yet existing research on multimodal large language models (MLLMs) for document QA predominantly produces text-only responses, underutilizing these visual elements. We introduce VinQA, a dataset for long-form answer generation where cited visual elements are explicitly interleaved with their supporting text and grounded in relevant document pages. To support this task, we study two encoding methods for feeding raw document page images into an MLLM, along with their visual-element citation mechanisms: (1) Page Encoding, which directly encodes full-page images with bounding boxes of visual elements and treats these boxed regions as citable units; and (2) Modality Encoding, which parses each page to extract text and crop visual elements, encodes them separately, and uses these cropped elements as citable units. In our experiments, we propose M-GroSE, a multimodal evaluation framework extending GroUSE to assess answers along four dimensions: completeness, answer relevancy, faithfulness, and unanswerability. We additionally report Visual Source F1 to directly measure visual citation accuracy. Although proprietary frontier models still achieve the best overall scores on the VinQA test split, fine-tuning open Qwen2.5-VL models on the training split substantially improves their performance and narrows this gap. Modality Encoding is initially more robust for complex documents with long text, many visual elements, and diverse citation requirements. After training on VinQA, however, Page Encoding reaches a comparable level, competing effectively even without the explicit parsing used in Modality Encoding. Finally, Visual G-Eval, an MLLM-based judge, confirms that fine-tuned models insert visual elements at semantically appropriate positions with faithful supporting text.

Multimodal LLMs can see a document, but they often can't read it reliably. Small text, tables, visual cues, and topological elements still trip them up under direct visual inference, even when the page is already sitting in the model's context. Most document-VQA systems treat perception as fixed: they encode the page once, ask the question, and answer from whatever the model happened to extract in that single fast pass. We think document VQA needs slower, more deliberate perception: rather than answering from one fixed encoding, the model should spend a bit of extra compute at inference time working out what to look at next, and only then answer. We build this into Q-Guide, a small agent that reads a question, works out what evidence it is still missing, and calls targeted tool(s) to recover it---reading text where text is needed, zooming in where detail is needed, or grounding a region where position matters. On DocVQA2026 and Manga109, Q-Guide outperforms both direct prompting and recent multi-agent document systems ($65.0\%$ vs.\ $40.0\%$ on DocVQA2026, $32.4\%$ vs.\ $24.4\%$ on Manga109), and the improvement holds across three Claude backbones (Opus 4.6, Sonnet 4.6, and Opus 4.5). We find that accuracy scales with the perception budget---most of the gain appears within two to three deliberate rounds---and that the gain comes from directing perception to the right place, not from complex control logic: adding planners, routers, or multiple collaborating agents does not help.

Existing long-document QA benchmarks rarely combine large-scale human-authored questions with detailed visual evidence annotations, limiting diagnosis of evidence localization and interpretation failures. We present VELD-QA, a large-scale benchmark for Visual Evidence grounding and question answering in Long Documents. It contains 15,000 fully human-authored question-answer pairs across 5,859 real-world PDFs totaling 372,445 pages, balancing chart, table, and complex-layout tasks. Human annotations identify supporting pages and evidence elements and describe cited visual content, enabling separate retrieval and interpretation evaluation. We evaluate nine vision-language models under four evidence settings and seven retrieval-augmented and agentic systems. Our analysis identifies bottlenecks in evidence localization and interpretation. Retrieval-based methods substantially underperform the oracle setting with ground-truth supporting pages; full-document access does not close the gap. Localization alone is insufficient: oracle accuracy peaks at 81.7%, highlighting persistent visual interpretation and reasoning challenges. Enriching inputs with our visual-element annotations narrows the performance gap by 17-24%, demonstrating value beyond evaluation and motivating data enrichment for multimodal document QA. Our code is available at https://github.com/oracle-samples/veld-qa.