Pith. sign in

REVIEW 11 cited by

MDocAgent: A Multi-Modal Multi-Agent Framework for Document Understanding

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.13964 v1 pith:WH5A5AIZ submitted 2025-03-18 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords agentdocumentmdocagentmulti-modalframeworkinformationmulti-agenttextual
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Document Question Answering (DocQA) is a very common task. Existing methods using Large Language Models (LLMs) or Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) and Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) often prioritize information from a single modal, failing to effectively integrate textual and visual cues. These approaches struggle with complex multi-modal reasoning, limiting their performance on real-world documents. We present MDocAgent (A Multi-Modal Multi-Agent Framework for Document Understanding), a novel RAG and multi-agent framework that leverages both text and image. Our system employs five specialized agents: a general agent, a critical agent, a text agent, an image agent and a summarizing agent. These agents engage in multi-modal context retrieval, combining their individual insights to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the document's content. This collaborative approach enables the system to synthesize information from both textual and visual components, leading to improved accuracy in question answering. Preliminary experiments on five benchmarks like MMLongBench, LongDocURL demonstrate the effectiveness of our MDocAgent, achieve an average improvement of 12.1% compared to current state-of-the-art method. This work contributes to the development of more robust and comprehensive DocQA systems capable of handling the complexities of real-world documents containing rich textual and visual information. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/MDocAgent.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 11 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Locating Failure in Multi-Page Visually Rich Document Understanding: An Empirical Attribution

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A controlled attribution study of multi-page document understanding finds that missing evidence and cross-page integration failures dominate over distractor noise and text extraction quality.

  2. HierDoc: Hierarchical Page-to-Region Evidence Routing for Long-Document Visual Question Answering

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HierDoc trains separate page- and region-selection policies with GRPO, then answers from full selected pages plus selected region crops and text.

  3. XL-DocBench: Benchmarking Evidence-Grounded Extra-Long Document Understanding

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    XL-DocBench is a 1,519-question, fully human-verified extra-long document QA benchmark across six professional domains; state-of-the-art systems still score at most 44% on it.

  4. FinSAgent: Corpus-Aligned Multi-Agent RAG Framework for Evidence-Grounded SEC Filing Question Answering

    cs.IR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FinSAgent improves financial filing QA by conditioning sub-queries on a summary of the local corpus and gating semantic reranking with a learned validity signal, beating baseline systems on five benchmarks.

  5. Dual Latent Memory for Visual Multi-agent System

    cs.AI 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    L2-VMAS replaces text-based inter-agent communication in visual multi-agent systems with decoupled latent perception and thinking memories, improving accuracy by 2.7–5.4% and cutting token use by 21.3–44.8%.

  6. Structured Attention Matters to Multimodal LLMs in Document Understanding

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Structured LaTeX encoding of OCR text, combined with document images, improves DocQA accuracy across four MLLMs and four benchmarks without any training.

  7. From EduVisBench to EduVisAgent: A Benchmark and Multi-Agent Framework for Reasoning-Driven Pedagogical Visualization

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    EduVisAgent, a five-agent framework, outperforms all baseline AI models at generating pedagogically effective interactive visualizations for STEM problems, according to the new EduVisBench benchmark and its GPT-4o-bas...

  8. MMedPO: Aligning Medical Vision-Language Models with Clinical-Aware Multimodal Preference Optimization

    cs.CV 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MMedPO weights preference-optimization training samples by clinical relevance scores, combining hallucinated text answers and locally noised lesion images, and reports improved medical VQA and report generation metrics.

  9. Enhancing Large Multimodal Models in Key Information Extraction via Scene-Aware Document Synthesis

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Scene-aware multi-agent document synthesis plus error-driven hard-example expansion improves compact Qwen3-VL models on constrained and open-category KIE, topping reported on-device baselines.

  10. MoLoRAG: Bootstrapping Document Understanding via Multi-modal Logic-aware Retrieval

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    MoLoRAG boosts multi-page document QA by traversing a page graph and scoring pages with both semantic and VLM-judged logical relevance, improving retrieval and answer accuracy on four benchmarks.

  11. A Multimodal Multi-Agent Framework for Radiology Report Generation

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A five-agent retrieval-augmented pipeline for radiology report generation outperforms a single LLaVA-Med baseline on IU X-ray, but the comparison is limited to one weak baseline with no ablations and no statistical tests.

Pith tools