Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Navigating Large-Scale Document Collections: MuDABench for Multi-Document Analytical QA

Zhanli Li, Yixuan Cao, Lvzhou Luo, Ping Luo

Published

Apr 24, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

25/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

55% (Moderate)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Domain Experts

Signals refreshed

Apr 24, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Automatic Metrics Coding Multi Agent

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
25/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

This paper introduces the task of analytical question answering over large, semi-structured document collections. We present MuDABench, a benchmark for multi-document analytical QA, where questions require extracting and synthesizing information across numerous documents to perform quantitative analysis. Unlike existing multi-document QA benchmarks that typically require information from only a few documents with limited cross-document reasoning, MuDABench demands extensive inter-document analysis and aggregation. Constructed via distant supervision by leveraging document-level metadata and annotated financial databases, MuDABench comprises over 80,000 pages and 332 analytical QA instances. We also propose an evaluation protocol that measures final answer accuracy and uses intermediate-fact coverage as an auxiliary diagnostic signal for the reasoning process. Experiments reveal that standard RAG systems, which treat all documents as a flat retrieval pool, perform poorly. To address these limitations, we propose a multi-agent workflow that orchestrates planning, extraction, and code generation modules. While this approach substantially improves both process and outcome metrics, a significant gap remains compared to human expert performance. Our analysis identifies two primary bottlenecks: single-document information extraction accuracy and insufficient domain-specific knowledge in current systems. MuDABench is available at https://github.com/Zhanli-Li/MuDABench.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"This paper introduces the task of analytical question answering over large, semi-structured document collections."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"This paper introduces the task of analytical question answering over large, semi-structured document collections."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"This paper introduces the task of analytical question answering over large, semi-structured document collections."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

Mudabench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"We present MuDABench, a benchmark for multi-document analytical QA, where questions require extracting and synthesizing information across numerous documents to perform quantitative analysis."

Reported Metrics

strong

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"We also propose an evaluation protocol that measures final answer accuracy and uses intermediate-fact coverage as an auxiliary diagnostic signal for the reasoning process."

Rater Population

strong

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"While this approach substantially improves both process and outcome metrics, a significant gap remains compared to human expert performance."

Benchmarks and datasets

Mudabench

Reported metrics

accuracy
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Domain Experts
Expertise required
Coding
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
Multi Agent
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Moderate
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

This paper introduces the task of analytical question answering over large, semi-structured document collections.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • This paper introduces the task of analytical question answering over large, semi-structured document collections.
  • We present MuDABench, a benchmark for multi-document analytical QA, where questions require extracting and synthesizing information across numerous documents to perform quantitative analysis.
  • Unlike existing multi-document QA benchmarks that typically require information from only a few documents with limited cross-document reasoning, MuDABench demands extensive inter-document analysis and aggregation.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Expert verification evaluation Accuracy

Contribution summary

  • We present MuDABench, a benchmark for multi-document analytical QA, where questions require extracting and synthesizing information across numerous documents to perform quantitative analysis.
  • We also propose an evaluation protocol that measures final answer accuracy and uses intermediate-fact coverage as an auxiliary diagnostic signal for the reasoning process.
  • To address these limitations, we propose a multi-agent workflow that orchestrates planning, extraction, and code generation modules.

Why it matters for eval

  • We present MuDABench, a benchmark for multi-document analytical QA, where questions require extracting and synthesizing information across numerous documents to perform quantitative analysis.
  • To address these limitations, we propose a multi-agent workflow that orchestrates planning, extraction, and code generation modules.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Mudabench

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy