Zhuoran Yu, Le Thien Phuc Nguyen, Jaden Park +5cs.AI cs.CV cs.LG
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved strong performance on structured visual understanding tasks such as chart and document question answering. However, existing benchmarks typically evaluate these domains in isolation, leaving underexplored a key capability: whether models can use textual context to determine how chart evidence should be selected, interpreted, and aggregated. We introduce DocHop, a benchmark for integrated chart--context reasoning in document-style images. In DocHop, the document narrative specifies multi-step compositional constraints, while charts provide the corresponding data values. Questions are grounded on a semantic reference label defined in the narrative, requiring models to resolve target entities from context before aggregating evidence across multiple charts. To enable systematic evaluation, we construct DocHop via a stochastic logic-first generation pipeline with controllable reasoning depth and visual density, covering 2,074 examples across six task categories. Experiments on a wide range of proprietary and open-source MLLMs show a substantial gap to human performance: annotators achieve over 90% accuracy, while the best model reaches only 62.83%. Reasoning-enhanced models consistently show improved results, but performance degrades as reasoning complexity increases. Overall, DocHop provides a controlled testbed for challenging multi-hop document reasoning.
Different retrievers, including lexical, semantic, and multimodal approaches, provide highly complementary strengths for multimodal document understanding, yet most systems combine them through fixed pipelines that cannot adapt to the demands of individual reasoning steps. In this work, we ask whether retrieval orchestration itself can be learned as part of the reasoning process. We introduce a failure-driven evolution framework in which a meta-agent autonomously discovers how a tool-using task agent should coordinate diverse retrievers during multi-step document question answering. The meta-agent analyzes incorrect reasoning trajectories, actively probes the same tool environment to diagnose root causes, and iteratively rewrites the task agent's instructions, turning retrieval from a fixed front-end stage into an adaptive, step-wise reasoning decision. The evolved agent learns when to invoke each retriever, how to combine them, and how to compose evidence across modalities and pages. On MMLongBench-Doc and DocBench, the evolved agent achieves gains of up to +19.6 points over the unevolved baseline and consistently outperforms recent systems including MACT, MDocAgent, and SimpleDoc. Detailed retrieval analyses confirm that these improvements arise from adaptive routing and evidence composition rather than reliance on any hard coded retrieval mode, and evolution dynamics reveal a progressive shift from narrow lexical behavior to rich multi-tool coordination. These findings establish autonomous multi-agent coordination as a promising paradigm for multimodal document reasoning.
Multimodal large language models have demonstrated strong document reasoning capabilities by incorporating explicit thinking processes. While this capability significantly improves performance on challenging tasks, current models apply such deep reasoning uniformly to all questions, resulting in unnecessary computational overhead for simple task. This not only degrades user experience but also negatively impact accuracy on benchmark datasets. We identify the critical need for adaptive thinking mechanisms that can intelligently determine when to engage reasoning based on question complexity. To address this, we propose AdaThinking-E, a novel reinforcement learning framework that learns adaptive thinking through one-token entropy regulation. Our key insight is that model confidence in the decision to engage thinking (or not) can be quantified through entropy analysis of the predicted probability distribution at critical decision tokens. This observation motivates our entropy-governed reward mechanism: the training process naturally transitions from high-entropy exploration, where the model experiments with different thinking strategies, to low-entropy convergence with confident, generalizable decision-making policies. Crucially, this approach enables models to intrinsically discover when to think without requiring manual intervention or external difficulty labels. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach enables models to be both accurate on complex problems and efficient on simple ones across diverse document tasks.
Large language models are increasingly deployed as agents that reason over documents rather than answer from parametric knowledge. We study archive-grounded reasoning: locating sparse evidence across a large, messy collection of workplace files, reconciling inconsistent terminology, units, and time conventions, and computing an answer. Existing benchmarks address only parts of this setting and none jointly stresses archive-groundedness, agentic exploration, and cross-domain coverage. We introduce Agora, a benchmark pairing 362 questions with eight domain collections of 9,664 authentic documents and 372M tokens, far exceeding any model's context window, so agents must explore deliberately rather than scan exhaustively. Agora is built by an agentic pipeline combining cross-document task synthesis, leakage-preventing obfuscation, and difficulty filtering. Evaluating eight models, we find the task far from solved: even the strongest reaches only 59.4% accuracy, with notable variation across domains.