Found but Not Read: When Extracted Text Closes the Retrieval-Reading Gap in Document Vision-Language Models

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.

Multi-page Document Visual Question Answering requires reasoning over semantics, layouts, and visual elements in long, visually dense documents. Existing OCR-free methods face a trade-off between capacity and precision: end-to-end models scale poorly with document length, while visual retrieval-based pipelines are brittle and passive. We propose Doc-$V^*$, an OCR-free agentic framework that casts multi-page DocVQA as sequential evidence aggregation. Doc-$V^*$ begins with a thumbnail overview, then actively navigates via semantic retrieval and targeted page fetching, and aggregates evidence in a structured working memory for grounded reasoning. Trained by imitation learning from expert trajectories and further optimized with Group Relative Policy Optimization, Doc-$V^*$ balances answer accuracy with evidence-seeking efficiency. Across five benchmarks, Doc-$V^*$ outperforms open-source baselines and approaches proprietary models, improving out-of-domain performance by up to 47.9% over RAG baseline. Other results reveal effective evidence aggregation with selective attention, not increased input pages.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used for long-document processing, where the inputs combine text with charts, tables, figures, and complex layouts. Deploying them means choosing how to feed the document to the model, which retriever to use when only a subset of pages is sent, and whether to run the model agentically or as a static pipeline. We study these choices on two long-document QA benchmarks with both frontier API and open-weight VLMs. First, on MMLongBench-Doc our six-tool agent with page, table, figure, and search calls pays off only once the answering VLM is large enough: with Qwen3.5-4B and 9B it trails static page input, with Qwen3.5-27B it draws level, and with Sonnet 4.5 it leads. On LongDocURL it is level with or ahead of static input at every reader. Its lead over the strongest static pipeline is clearest with the frontier reader on MMLongBench-Doc and narrows to within noise on LongDocURL. Second, retrieval modality matters more than the specific retriever: the strongest image retriever leads the strongest text pipeline, and on the text side a single off-the-shelf cross-encoder rerank essentially matches a much heavier multi-stage LLM pipeline. Top-k image retrieval is also the most token-efficient input at every reader we paired it with, at roughly a seventh to a quarter of the tokens of sending every page. Third, cutting across all three choices, three of our strongest pipelines succeed on different questions, and an oracle that picks the best pipeline per question gains roughly thirteen points over the best single pipeline, though evidence-type routing recovers almost none of it.