Scan or Index? large Evidence Coverage, Answer Quality, and Cost in Long-Document RAG

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.

LLM agents increasingly answer questions over dynamic raw-document collections, where files may change before preprocessing, and relevant evidence (spans, sections, pages, or tables) is query-dependent. Existing retrieval-augmented approaches pre-materialize evidence via fixed chunking, embeddings, or persistent indexes: effective for lookup, yet costly, stale-prone, and committed to a granularity before the query is known. We formulate in-context search as Budgeted Evidence Localization over a latent evidence space induced by dynamic raw documents and propose LENS (Latent Evidence Exploration and Search), an index-free framework. Instead of pre-materializing the evidence space, LENS maintains a query-conditioned belief over candidate units, iteratively selecting candidates via complementary lexical, local, and exploratory proposal policies, updating the belief via an LLM relevance oracle, and narrowing toward high-posterior regions under a controllable budget. Evidence is consolidated into compact, source-grounded regions of interest and compressed into self-organizing knowledge clusters reused across related queries. On a controlled 500-question evaluation with matched corpus snapshots, LENS reaches 62.4% exact match and 84.8% evidence recall vs. 65.2% exact match but 50.4% evidence recall for a ReAct-style baseline. Across scales, LENS gives the strongest supporting-fact localization and answer grounding. On a fixed 150-question fullwiki subset over the raw Wikipedia dump with zero indexing, LENS and ReAct are nearly tied in official answer quality (43.3% vs. 42.7% EM), with LENS grounding more answers in retrieved evidence (84.0% vs. 70.7%). A no-retrieval Closed-Book reference highlights the contribution of model memory. LENS is query-ready after corpus changes, needs no preprocessing or persistent index, and preserves source-grounded evidence localization throughout.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is hard to monitor in production: exhaustive relevance labels do not exist for non-stationary multi-million-passage corpora that re-index in real time. As a result, retrieval quality is generally understudied and often deprioritised in favour of generation-oriented metrics. In this work, we propose auditing retrieval coverage by probing for evidence of missing documents rather than enumerating every relevant one. Our method Re:CAP (REtrieval Coverage Audit by iterative Probing) is a reference-free audit loop applied to a deployed RAG pipeline's initial answer and retrieved context: it identifies the topics already covered, generates probing questions for plausibly missing topics, retrieves candidate documents, and applies an LLM-as-judge to retain only those that introduce previously-unretrieved information. On four public benchmarks, Re:CAP recovers 9-29% of gold labels that flat BM25 top-500 cannot reach, rising to 48% on TREC-COVID. On MuSiQue Re:CAP beats flat hybrid top-500 by +12.9 pp on recall at less than half the document budget. An ensemble BM25, dense, and hybrid baseline (top-500 each) still leaves out 21.2% of gold docs on TREC-COVID that Re:CAP recovers; human annotators judge that 78.9% of those structurally distinct documents add new information to the baseline answer (Fleiss $κ$ = 0.79, n = 123), and 73.9% on live production traffic (n = 180). End-to-end recall is reproducible to within $\pm$1% across three independent runs, making Re:CAP a stable instrument for periodic retrieval audits.