One Fact, Many Places: Redundant Evidence in Long Visual Documents Breaks Single-Gold Evaluation of Retrieval, Citation and Attribution

Vision-based document retrieval has improved rapidly, but current evaluation settings still emphasize short documents and single relevant pages. This leaves an important gap between leaderboard performance and realistic long-document retrieval, where the evidence needed to answer a query may span multiple pages or even multiple documents. We present VL-DocIR, a page-level benchmark for evidence-complete visual long-document retrieval. VL-DocIR is built from 29,641 HTML-born documents rendered into 388,548 page images from Wikipedia, arXiv, PubMed, and SEC proxy statements. It contains 271,760 queries across 23 domains and six evidence structures, covering single-page, within-document multi-page, and cross-document evidence configurations. Evidence annotations are grounded to rendered pages and HTML element identifiers, and queries are filtered with a cleaning pipeline targeting clarity, correctness, closedness, and the absence of explicit layout references. We evaluate leading single-vector and multi-vector visual retrievers together with diagnostic retrieval settings such as document-context scoring, query splitting, reranking, and round-robin ensembles. The strongest evaluated configuration reaches 69.3 nDCGAll@10 and 80.6 RecallAll@10 under structure-balanced Macro evaluation, but source- and evidence-structure breakdowns show that cross-document retrieval remains substantially harder than single-page retrieval, and that document-context scoring is especially helpful for within-document multi-page queries. VL-DocIR exposes these failure modes and provides a more demanding target for visual long-document retrieval. The new dataset and code will be made publicly available at https://yufanchen96.github.io/VL-DocIR.

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.

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 enforces multi-stage quality control. 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.