Evidence-Grounded QA

Academic researchers need efficient and reliable methods for collecting high-quality information from trusted sources, but modern tools for AI-assisted research still suffer from the tendency of Large Language Models (LLMs) to produce factually inaccurate or nonsensical output, commonly referred to as hallucinations. We apply the extractive question answering system VerbatimRAG to research papers in the ACL Anthology, directly mapping user queries to verbatim text spans in retrieved documents. We contribute a novel ground truth dataset for the task of mapping user queries to relevant text spans in research papers, and use it to train and evaluate a variety of extractive models. Human annotation is performed by NLP researchers and is based on synthetic user queries generated using a custom pipeline based on the ScIRGen methodology, paired with chunks of research papers retrieved by VerbatimRAG. On this benchmark, a 150M-parameter ModernBERT token classifier trained on silver supervision from our pipeline achieves the best word-level F1 (53.6), ahead of the strongest evaluated LLM extractor (48.7).

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.

We present AgenticRAG, a practical agentic harness for retrieval and analysis over enterprise knowledge bases. Standard RAG pipelines place significant burden of grounding on the search stack, constraining the language model to a fixed candidate set chosen deep in the retrieval process. Our approach reduces this overdependence by layering a lightweight harness on top of existing enterprise search infrastructure, equipping a reasoning LLM with search, find, open, and summarize tools enabling the model to iteratively retrieve information, navigate within documents, and analyze evidence autonomously. On three open benchmarks we observe substantial gains: $49.6\%$ recall@1 on BRIGHT (+21.8 pp over the best embedding baseline), 0.96 factuality on WixQA ($+13\%$ relative improvement), and $92\%$ answer correctness on FinanceBench--within 2 pp of oracle access to true evidence. Ablation studies show that the most significant factor is the shift from single-shot retrieval to agentic tool use ($5.9\times$ improvement), while multi-query search and in-document navigation contribute to both quality and efficiency. We present various design choices in our agentic harness that were informed by pre-production deployments. Our results demonstrate its suitability for real-world enterprise production environments.

Deep research requires reasoning over web evidence to answer open-ended questions, and it is a core capability for AI agents. Yet many deep research agents still rely on implicit, unstructured search behavior that causes redundant exploration and brittle evidence aggregation. Motivated by Anthropic's "think" tool paradigm and insights from the information-retrieval literature, we introduce Q+, a set of query and evidence processing tools that make web search more deliberate by guiding query planning, monitoring search progress, and extracting evidence from long web snapshots. We integrate Q+ into the browser sub-agent of Eigent, an open-source, production-ready multi-agent workforce for computer use, yielding EigentSearch-Q+. Across four benchmarks (SimpleQA-Verified, FRAMES, WebWalkerQA, and XBench DeepSearch), Q+ improves Eigent's browser agent benchmark-size-weighted average accuracy by 3.0, 3.8, and 0.6 percentage points (pp) for GPT-4.1, GPT-5.1, and Minimax M2.5 model backends, respectively. Case studies further suggest that EigentSearch-Q+ produces more coherent tool-calling trajectories by making search progress and evidence handling explicit.

Retrieval-augmented language models can retrieve relevant evidence yet still commit to answers before explicitly checking whether the retrieved context supports the conclusion. We present PAVE (Premise-Grounded Answer Validation and Editing), an inference-time validation layer for evidence-grounded question answering. PAVE decomposes retrieved context into question-conditioned atomic facts, drafts an answer, scores how well that draft is supported by the extracted premises, and revises low-support outputs before finalization. The resulting trace makes answer commitment auditable at the level of explicit premises, support scores, and revision decisions. In controlled ablations with a fixed retriever and backbone, PAVE outperforms simpler post-retrieval baselines in two evidence-grounded QA settings, with the largest gain reaching 32.7 accuracy points on a span-grounded benchmark. We view these findings as proof-of-concept evidence that explicit premise extraction plus support-gated revision can strengthen evidence-grounded consistency in retrieval-augmented LLM systems.

In factual question answering, many errors are not failures of access but failures of commitment: the system retrieves relevant evidence, yet still settles on the wrong answer. We present CounterRefine, a lightweight repair layer for short-form RAG that treats the first answer as a hypothesis to test. Given a draft, CounterRefine issues answer-conditioned expansion queries to retrieve candidate-specific evidence, then applies a constrained KEEP or REVISE refinement step whose proposed revisions are accepted only after deterministic validation. The design is intentionally narrow: it adds one evidence-gathering pass and one guarded refinement call rather than replacing the retriever or building a broad agentic system. On the full SimpleQA benchmark, CounterRefine improves a matched one-pass RAG baseline by up to 5.8 correct-rate points; in the full Claude trace, it changes only 5.6% of outputs, with 180 beneficial outcome changes and 8 harmful ones. These findings suggest a simple but important direction for knowledgeable foundation models: beyond accessing evidence, they should also be able to use that evidence to reconsider and, when necessary, repair their own answers.

With the emergence of search-enabled generative QA systems, users are increasingly turning to tools that browse, aggregate, and reconcile evidence across multiple sources on their behalf. Yet many widely used QA benchmarks remain answerable by retrieving a single relevant passage, making them poorly suited for measuring cross-source sensemaking, such as integrating evidence, tracking causal links, and resolving dependencies across facets of a topic. We present iAgentBench, a dynamic ODQA benchmark that targets these higher-level information needs while keeping questions natural and grounded in realistic information-seeking behavior. iAgentBench draws seed topics from real-world attention signals and uses common user intent patterns to construct user-like questions whose answers require combining evidence from multiple sources, not just extracting a single snippet. Each instance is released with traceable evidence and auditable intermediate artifacts that support contamination checks and enable fine-grained diagnosis of failures in retrieval versus synthesis. Experiments across multiple LLMs show that retrieval improves accuracy, but retrieval alone does not reliably resolve these questions, underscoring the need to evaluate evidence use, not just evidence access.

We introduce ACE-TA, the Agentic Coding and Explanations Teaching Assistant framework, that autonomously routes conceptual queries drawn from programming course material to grounded Q&A, stepwise coding guidance, and automated quiz generation using pre-trained Large Language Models (LLMs). ACE-TA consists of three coordinated modules: a retrieval grounded conceptual Q&A system that provides precise, context-aligned explanations; a quiz generator that constructs adaptive, multi-topic assessments targeting higher-order understanding; and an interactive code tutor that guides students through step-by-step reasoning with sandboxed execution and iterative feedback.

Reliable question answering over long institutional documents requires more than topical retrieval: a system must localize the exact passage that supports a claim and preserve precise numerical and temporal detail when the same indicator recurs across years, countries, and projection horizons in dense, repetitive prose. Existing question-answering benchmarks rarely test this combination of exact grounding and temporal precision at document scale. We introduce AfriEconQA, a benchmark for document-grounded question answering built from 204 World Bank economic reports on African economies, a corpus whose claims are tied to specific fiscal periods, countries, and projection states. AfriEconQA contains 4,138 evidence-linked QA instances across five reasoning categories: Factoid (1,063), List (852), Multiple Choice (889), Synthesis (671), and Comparison (663), targeting quantitative extraction, set recovery, discrimination, causal integration, and cross-period or cross-country reasoning. Each instance carries supporting evidence and source provenance and is constructed through an agentic generation pipeline with evidence-grounding checks and a stratified human-validation subset for gold-label auditing. We evaluate Qwen 3.6 35B, DeepSeek v4-pro, Gemma 4 12B IT, and frontier model GPT-5.5 under zero-shot, oracle, and hybrid retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) conditions on the held-out test split (n = 826). Across all four models, retrieval yields substantial gains, yet the best RAG system reaches only 0.594 F1, with residual errors concentrated in list extraction, synthesis, and temporally scoped comparison. AfriEconQA therefore poses a hard open challenge for exact numerical and temporal grounding over long institutional economic reports.