You Can Tell Who's Asking: What the Web's Questions Are Made Of, and Where They Come From

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.

Retrieval-augmented systems routinely present citations alongside generated answers, yet a citation does not confirm that the corresponding source meaningfully shaped the output. This paper introduces ProvenAI, a framework that decomposes transparency in multi-hop question answering into three independently measurable layers: answer correctness, citation fidelity against benchmark supporting evidence, and per-document influence under leave-one-resource-out intervention. Targeting the HotpotQA distractor benchmark through a seven-stage pipeline covering data normalisation, retrieval indexing, citation-aware answer generation, attribution auditing, ablation-based influence estimation, batch evaluation, and interactive inspection, ProvenAI evaluates 7,405 validation examples drawn from a canonical corpus of 509,300 passages. The system achieves 53.53% answer accuracy alongside a mean citation-fidelity score of 71.55%, and a worked example surfaces what we call the citation-influence gap: a clean citation audit co-occurring with a profile in which one cited source registers only weak influence while seven uncited sources demonstrably shift the output. We formalise the relationship between the implemented surface proxy and a token-level KL-divergence target through a stated faithfulness condition, ground the framework in causal-mediation analysis and database-provenance theory, and discuss how the three measurement layers compose with cryptographic provenance architectures emerging in autonomous scientific discovery. ProvenAI establishes that meaningful transparency in retrieval-grounded QA requires traceable links across retrieved, cited, and behaviourally influential evidence as three distinct, independently measured layers.

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.