InSight-doc: Agentic Visual Perception for Long-Document Understanding

arXiv:2608.106282026-08-10

An AI that skims a long document at low resolution, then zooms in only where needed, answers faster and more accurately

InSight-doc is an AI agent that starts by viewing a long document at low resolution and then decides on its own where to zoom into the original high-resolution page to gather the evidence it needs, without any external retrieval tool. Trained with a mix of imitation learning and reinforcement learning on an 8B-parameter model, it raises document question-answering accuracy by 4.3-16.4 points over its base model. On long documents it also cuts unsupported ('hallucinated') answers by over 40% and cuts inference latency by 41-68%.

METAL MEDIA explanatory visual

InSight-doc's low-resolution-to-zoom-in reasoning loop

Evidence statusMeasured results reported

Low-resolution full document inputAll pages are first shown to the model at reduced resolution (e.g., 50 DPI), greatly cutting the number of visual tokens.
Think and call zoom-in toolThe model reasons with a <think> step and issues a <tool_call> specifying which page, region, and bounding box to zoom into.
Crop high-resolution regionThe requested region is cropped from the original high-resolution page and added to the model's visual context as new evidence.
Repeat evidence gatheringThe model can zoom in multiple times, across different pages if needed, until it has enough evidence.
Produce final answerOnce satisfied, the model outputs an <answer>, or indicates the question is unanswerable if no sufficient evidence was found.

An explanatory diagram made by METAL MEDIA, not a figure supplied by the paper's authors.

What they did

Feeding entire documents at high resolution into AI models is slow and can hurt accuracy on long inputs; feeding them at low resolution loses detail. InSight-doc resolves this by starting low-resolution and cropping/zooming into the original high-resolution page only for regions it decides matter.
To teach this behavior, the authors filtered out questions answerable without looking at the document, and questions already answerable at low resolution, then used a two-agent pipeline (a 'reasoner' and a 'searcher') to generate about 17.9K demonstration trajectories showing where to zoom, plus 19.2K harder examples for reinforcement learning. The model was first trained by imitating these demonstrations (SFT), then further trained with reinforcement learning (RL) using only a correct/incorrect answer signal as reward.
On standard document QA (DUDE, MP-DocVQA) and long-document QA (MMLongBench-Doc, LongDocURL, averaging 49-86 pages), InSight-doc-8B's average accuracy at low input resolution beat the base model (Qwen3-VL-8B) by 16.4 points, and by 4.3 points at medium resolution.
On unanswerable questions (where no evidence exists in the document), it substantially improved the ability to avoid making up an answer, raising F1 scores by up to 25.9 points over the base model.
It maintained or improved accuracy while cutting token usage by up to roughly 66-69% and inference latency by up to roughly 71% on the longest documents tested.

Figure 1: InSight-doc substantially reduces hallucination, sequence length, and latency while improving accuracy on long-document VQA. Hallucination rate is measured on unanswerable questions as the rate of non-abstaining answers. More details in Appendix F.1.

Table 1: Relative-latency upper bound for representative parameters. Here, n is the number of zoom-in tool calls.
r	n=0	n=1	n=2	n=3	n=4
0.25	0.046	0.124	0.238	0.389	0.576
0.35	0.090	0.189	0.325	0.498	0.707
0.50	0.190	0.336	0.519	0.738	0.994

Figure 2: Illustration of InSight-doc on a long-document VQA example. Starting from a low-resolution overview, InSight-doc performs an interleaved multimodal chain-of-thought: each round emits a thought (<think>) and a zoom-in tool call (<tool_call>) specifying img_idx, label, and bbox; the cropped high-resolution region is then appended as visual evidence. After multiple rounds of active perception, the model produces the final <answer>. Images shown above are not in the exact scales seen by the model. More examples can be found in Appendix G.

Table 2: Comparison with frontier models on medium-to-long document VQA. The models are compared under two initial resolution settings: low (r=0.25, DPI 50) and medium (r=0.5, DPI 100). The inference mode “E2E” means single-turn QA without tool use, while “Agent” allows multi-turn zoom-in tool use. LLM-as-judge accuracy is reported on all benchmarks. Input page limit is set to 40 for all models due to API limit on some closed models. The limit only affects MMLongBench-Doc and LongDocURL. The unlimited results can be found in Appendix F.2.
		DUDE	MP-DVQA	MMLong.	LongDoc.	Average
		0.25	0.5	0.25	0.5	0.25	0.5	0.25	0.5	0.25	0.5
Closed proprietary models
GPT-5.4-nano	E2E	52.8	66.0	64.2	83.4	33.6	52.2	54.4	72.7	51.2	68.6
GPT-5.4-mini	E2E	63.2	71.6	78.3	88.9	46.4	58.8	69.3	77.6	64.3	74.2
GPT-5-mini	E2E	63.9	70.0	81.3	89.5	48.0	57.2	70.3	80.4	65.9	74.3
Gemini-3.1-Flash-lite	E2E	70.2	70.8	87.5	89.4	57.4	58.3	75.8	75.7	72.7	73.5
Gemini-3-Flash	E2E	72.0	72.4	89.3	89.9	62.4	61.8	77.6	76.3	75.3	75.1
Open models
InternVL3-8B	E2E	52.7	62.2	66.5	84.7	13.6	33.5	26.7	42.9	39.9	55.8
GLM-4.6V-Flash (9B)	E2E	40.7	53.4	50.9	72.5	14.8	15.0	24.6	26.0	32.8	41.7
Qwen3-VL-8B	E2E	52.9	68.5	65.1	84.9	33.7	51.4	50.5	68.4	50.5	68.3
Qwen3-VL-8B (w/ zoom)	Agent	55.1	66.4	66.1	82.6	33.2	48.8	47.1	63.8	50.4	65.4
InSight-doc models
InSight-doc-8B (SFT)	Agent	60.8	67.2	72.2	79.5	36.5	48.0	57.0	63.7	56.6	64.6
InSight-doc-8B (SFT+RL)	Agent	70.1	73.8	83.4	87.6	50.8	58.6	63.3	70.5	66.9	72.6
Δ w.r.t. Qwen3-VL-8B		+17.2	+05.3	+18.3	+02.7	+17.1	+07.2	+12.8	+02.1	+16.4	+04.3

Figure 3: Overview of data construction pipeline. The top panel shows a three-stage filtering and CoT construction process: Stage 1 discards questions answerable without the document, Stage 2 discards questions already answerable at low DPI without zoom, and Stage 3 uses InSight-o3 to construct zoom-in CoTs for the remaining items, routing successes to SFT and failures to RL. The bottom panel illustrates the InSight-o3 two-agent trajectory, where the vReasoner and vSearcher iteratively produce reasoning steps, zoom-in requests, bounding boxes, and crops, which are then merged into a single flat multimodal CoT used as the imitation target for InSight-doc.

Table 3: Comparison with frontier models on general high-resolution VQA. LLM-as-judge accuracy is reported under two initial resolution settings: r=0.25 and r=0.5. The inference modes follow Table 2.
	MME-RWℓ	O3-Bench
	0.25	0.5	0.25	0.5
GPT-5.4-nano	40.3	47.9	29.6	32.8
GPT-5.4-mini	47.4	57.2	40.9	56.2
Gemini-3.1-Flash-lite	47.8	51.8	44.6	51.0
Qwen3-VL-8B	41.0	49.2	22.3	35.1
Qwen3-VL-8B (w/ zoom)	42.5	50.6	20.3	35.4
InSight-doc-8B (SFT+RL)	48.2	52.9	24.1	43.8

Figure 4: Accuracy vs. efficiency on four multi-page document VQA benchmarks. We compare InSight-doc (ours, green) with Qwen3-VL-8B without zoom-in calls (purple) and with zoom-in calls (pink). For each method, darker shades indicate larger input resize ratios (higher resolution, more visual tokens). Notably, InSight-doc shows a clear tendency to push the Pareto frontier toward the upper-left, achieving a more favorable trade-off.

Table 4: Not-answerable F1 scores under low and medium initial-input resolutions (r=0.25 and 0.5).
	DUDE	MMLong.
	0.25	0.5	0.25	0.5
Qwen3-VL-8B	44.5	57.4	48.5	55.9
Qwen3-VL-8B (w/ zoom)	50.7	55.6	58.7	62.7
InSight-doc-8B (SFT+RL)	69.1	72.4	74.4	75.1

Figure 5: Statistics of our training data.

Table 5: Comparison with visual-retrieval and coarse-to-fine methods. R-f: retriever-free, C2F: coarse-to-fine, Itr: iterative multi-turn evidence acquisition, Rgn: region-level evidence, MMLD.: MMLongBench-Doc, and LDoc.: LongDocURL. Scores are official cross-paper numbers and are not fully controlled for backbone, training data, input resolution, page budget, or evaluation protocol. †With GPT-4o as the main agent; other methods are based on open models of similar sizes.
Method	R-f	C2F	Itr	Rgn	MMLD.	LDoc.
ColPali†	✗	✗	✗	✗	30.8	–
Doc-React†	✗	✗	✓	✗	38.3	–
VDocRAG	✗	✗	✗	✗	18.4	39.8
VRAG-RL	✗	✓	✓	✓	26.6	44.9
CogDoc	✓	✓	✗	✗	33.0	–
DocSeeker	✓	✗	✗	✗	40.1	51.7
Doc-V⋆	✗	✓	✓	✗	42.1	56.3
InSight-doc	✓	✓	✓	✓	57.8	65.6

Table 6: Trajectory-quality comparison on document VQA benchmarks. Crops denotes the mean number of zoom-in calls. Box denotes the LongDocURL evidence-box hit rate, where a crop must cover at least 50% of an evidence box. A trajectory is redundant if it contains a pair of crops from the same source with IoU ≥0.8. A trajectory is stuck if it exhausts the tool-call budget and ends with at least two consecutive crops on the same page. Area is the union of all cropped regions normalized by the full-page area. Box coverage, redundancy, stuck rate, and area are reported as percentages.
r	Overall	Unanswerable
Crops	Box	Rdn.	Stuck	Area	Crops	Stuck
Qwen3-VL-8B (w/ zoom)
0.25	2.94	27.5	14.1	9.7	15.2	3.03	9.6
0.50	1.66	41.8	6.0	4.4	11.1	1.63	4.6
InSight-doc-8B (SFT)
0.25	2.06	68.1	11.7	5.1	16.4	3.41	10.2
0.50	1.23	70.2	4.1	1.6	12.4	2.08	3.5
InSight-doc-8B (SFT+RL)
0.25	2.34	82.3	5.8	0.1	28.5	2.75	0.0
0.50	1.69	77.0	2.4	0.0	22.5	1.91	0.0

Figure 7: Accuracy vs. efficiency on the longest-document examples from MMLongBench-Doc and LongDocURL (200 examples each). InSight-doc-8B achieves higher accuracy at substantially lower time and token cost than both baselines.

Table 7: Filtering stages for answerable rows before SFT trajectory generation. Each cell reports row count followed by retention relative to the corresponding source-family/DPI source pool. The DPI columns correspond to resize ratios r=0.25,0.35,0.5 from 200-DPI page renders. The arXiv rows bypass prior-only filtering and are therefore carried forward unchanged in the second group; all sources are then included in zoom-free filtering. Unanswerable rows are excluded from this table and described separately.
Filtering stage	Total	50 DPI (r=0.25)	70 DPI (r=0.35)	100 DPI (r=0.5)
All sources
Source pool before filtering	50,903 (100.0%)	25,344 (100.0%)	14,839 (100.0%)	10,720 (100.0%)
After prior-only filtering	44,889 (88.2%)	22,382 (88.3%)	13,153 (88.6%)	9,354 (87.3%)
After zoom-free filtering	26,943 (52.9%)	15,118 (59.7%)	7,370 (49.7%)	4,455 (41.6%)
arXiv
Source pool before filtering	16,949 (100.0%)	8,367 (100.0%)	5,582 (100.0%)	3,000 (100.0%)
After prior-only filtering	16,949 (100.0%)	8,367 (100.0%)	5,582 (100.0%)	3,000 (100.0%)
After zoom-free filtering	11,885 (70.1%)	6,541 (78.2%)	3,654 (65.5%)	1,690 (56.3%)
non-arXiv
Source pool before filtering	33,954 (100.0%)	16,977 (100.0%)	9,257 (100.0%)	7,720 (100.0%)
After prior-only filtering	27,940 (82.3%)	14,015 (82.6%)	7,571 (81.8%)	6,354 (82.3%)
After zoom-free filtering	15,058 (44.3%)	8,577 (50.5%)	3,716 (40.1%)	2,765 (35.8%)

Figure 8: Example of InSight-doc on an unanswerable question, i.e., one whose answer cannot be supported by any evidence in the document.

Table 8: Data-flow summary for filtering, add-ons, and the final SFT/RL split. Each numeric cell is an exact row count; add-on rows with a leading “+” are incremental counts, while other rows are cumulative totals. Within each source-family group, “All” is the sum of answerable (Ans.) and unanswerable (Unans.) rows.
	All sources	arXiv	non-arXiv
Stage	All	Ans.	Unans.	All	Ans.	Unans.	All	Ans.	Unans.
Filtering before trajectory generation
Source pool before filtering	62,318	50,903	11,415	22,552	16,949	5,603	39,766	33,954	5,812
After prior-only filtering	56,304	44,889	11,415	22,552	16,949	5,603	33,752	27,940	5,812
After zoom-free filtering	33,502	26,943	6,559	13,436	11,885	1,551	20,066	15,058	5,008
SFT construction
Correct InSight-o3 trajectories	14,717	14,216	501	6,350	6,306	44	8,367	7,910	457
Synthetic unanswerable add-on	+3,196	+0	+3,196	+1,765	+0	+1,765	+1,431	+0	+1,431
Final SFT rows	17,913	14,216	3,697	8,115	6,306	1,809	9,798	7,910	1,888
RL construction
RL candidate pool	18,785	12,727	6,058	7,086	5,579	1,507	11,699	7,148	4,551
After source selection, cleanup, and 24k cap	11,719	7,403	4,316	6,125	4,618	1,507	5,594	2,785	2,809
Synthetic unanswerable add-on	+4,341	+0	+4,341	+2,415	+0	+2,415	+1,926	+0	+1,926
Multiple-choice add-on	+2,176	+2,176	+0	+581	+581	+0	+1,595	+1,595	+0
Structured-document add-on	+1,000	+1,000	+0	+1,000	+1,000	+0	+0	+0	+0
Final RL rows (w/o reweighting)	19,236	10,579	8,657	10,121	6,199	3,922	9,115	4,380	4,735

Figure 9: Examples illustrating InSight-doc’s sequential zoom-in behavior, where it progressively refines target regions until sufficient evidence is collected. The bottom example, taken from MME-RealWorld-Lite, shows that InSight-doc also generalizes to natural-image visual search despite being trained solely on document data.

Table 9: RL sampling targets used by the weighted refill sampler. The weights sum to 1.0.
Sampling target	Weight mass
Answerable rows	86.0%
Unanswerable rows	14.0%
arXiv visually grounded QA	16.04%
arXiv multi-evidence QA	15.39%
arXiv structural rewrites	5.00%
DocVQA	9.97%
DUDE	22.22%
Infographic QA	3.99%
Map metro	15.06%
Map travel	4.75%
Poster QA	7.59%

Figure 10: An example demonstrating that InSight-doc can think and see in a manner similar to humans:adjusting the focus when the initially identified region is imprecise.

Table 10: Resize-ratio distribution of the SFT+RL data.
Dataset	r=0.25	r=0.35	r=0.5
SFT	10,051 (56.1%)	4,913 (27.4%)	2,949 (16.5%)
RL	13,281 (69.0%)	4,394 (22.8%)	1,561 (8.1%)

Figure 11: An example demonstrating that InSight-doc can think and see in a manner similar to humans: actively exploring potential regions that may contain the answer.

Table 11: SFT trajectory-quality metrics. Evidence metrics exclude unanswerable rows and rows without evidence metadata. Page and region hit rates also exclude zero-crop trajectories from their denominators.
Metric	Value
Scope
Rows with page evidence	13,335
Rows with box evidence	6,925
Coverage
Evidence-page hit rate	95.33%
Evidence-region hit rate, coverage ≥0.5	85.00%
Mean max evidence coverage	85.24%
Localization precision
Mean max crop/evidence IoU	52.37%
Crop region-hit rate	65.34%
Crops per evidence-region-hit crop	1.53
Crop area fraction	14.50%
Efficiency and redundancy
Same-source overlap rate, IoU ≥0.8	3.16%
Stuck rate	0.99%
Stop exactly at first region hit	71.14%

Figure 12: Examples demonstrating that InSight-doc can gather evidence from different pages.

Table 12: Judge calibration on a 150-example manually labeled stress set using GPT-5-nano. Metrics are percentages except FP/FN counts.
Judge	Acc.	Prec.	Recall	F1	FP	FN
legacy	84.7	98.1	70.3	81.9	1	22
single-call	87.3	86.7	87.8	87.2	10	9
legacy-v2	94.7	97.1	91.9	94.4	2	6

Table 13: Key hyperparameters for InSight-doc-8B SFT.
Hyperparameter	Value
Initialization	Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
# of training examples	17,913
Training steps	1118, 2 epochs
Fine-tuning type	full-parameter fine-tuning
Global batch size	32
Max sequence length	65,536 tokens
Sequence parallel size	4
Learning rate	5×10−6
LR schedule	cosine decay
Warmup ratio	0.05
Minimum learning rate	5×10−7
Optimizer	AdamW
Weight decay	0.01
Gradient clipping	1.0
Vision encoder	frozen

Table 14: Key hyperparameters for InSight-doc-8B RL.
Hyperparameter	Value
Initialization	InSight-doc-8B (SFT)
# of training examples	19,236
RL algorithm	GRPO
Training steps	800
Global batch size	24 prompts
Rollouts per prompt	8
Effective rollout batch size	192 responses
Learning rate	1×10−6
Optimizer	AdamW
KL regularization	low-var. KL, coeff. 0.01
Max prompt length	24,576 tokens
Max response length	8,192 tokens
vLLM max model length	32,768 tokens
Vision encoder	frozen
Sequence parallel size	4
Rollout temperature	0.7
Rollout top-p	0.8
Rollout top-k	20
Rollout presence penalty	1.5
Tool-use limit	10 times
Full-page image max area	35002 pixels
Crop max area	12802 pixels
Reward model	GPT-5-nano judge
Reward weights	accuracy 1.0
Data sampler	weighted random refill

Table 15: Key inference configuration for evaluation.
Configuration	Value
Inference backend	vLLM
vLLM replicas	4
GPUs per replica	1
Number of agent workers	8 (high) or 4 (low)
Worker concurrency	4 (high) or 1 (low)
vLLM max model length	262,144 tokens
Max generated tokens	16,384 tokens
vLLM max batched tokens	32,768 tokens
vLLM max sequences	64
GPU memory utilization	0.8
Prefix caching	enabled
Chunked prefill	enabled
Sampling temperature	0.7
Sampling top-p	0.8
Sampling top-k	20
Presence penalty	1.5
Repetition penalty	1.0
Full-page image max area	35002 pixels
Crop image max area	12802 pixels
Region zoom factor	2.0
Tool parser	Hermes-style tool parser
Max parallel tool calls	1
Tool-use limit	10 times
Context overflow handling	halve image area up to 4×

Table 16: Comparison with Qwen3-VL-8B under no page limit. The models are compared under four initial resolution settings: low (r=0.25, DPI 50), medium-low (r=0.35, DPI 70), and medium (r=0.5, DPI 100), and high (r=0.7, DPI 140). †Page-limited results are included for reference.
	MMLongBench-Doc	LongDocURL	Average
Model	0.25	0.35	0.5	0.7	0.25	0.35	0.5	0.7	0.25	0.35	0.5	0.7
Qwen3-VL-8B†	33.7	45.3	51.4	52.0	50.5	63.7	68.4	70.5	42.1	54.5	59.9	61.2
Qwen3-VL-8B	33.0	43.0	49.8	51.1	47.0	57.2	62.6	63.9	40.0	50.1	56.2	57.5
Qwen3-VL-8B (w/ zoom)†	33.2	40.4	48.8	53.1	47.1	58.2	63.8	68.8	40.2	49.3	56.3	60.9
Qwen3-VL-8B (w/ zoom)	33.6	40.5	47.8	49.9	36.7	46.6	57.7	62.2	35.2	43.5	52.7	56.0
InSight-doc-8B (SFT)†	36.5	43.0	48.0	47.3	57.0	61.1	63.7	66.0	46.7	52.0	55.9	56.6
InSight-doc-8B (SFT)	37.9	43.7	45.9	46.7	47.2	54.4	57.2	59.1	42.5	49.1	51.6	52.9
InSight-doc-8B (SFT+RL)†	50.8	55.6	58.6	57.9	63.3	68.4	70.5	71.9	57.0	62.0	64.5	64.9
InSight-doc-8B (SFT+RL)	50.0	55.1	57.8	58.5	57.3	63.2	65.6	67.0	53.7	59.1	61.7	62.7

Table 17: Expanded comparison with retrieval-based, coarse-to-fine, iterative, and structured document reasoning methods. Scores are official cross-paper numbers and are used for positioning rather than controlled head-to-head comparison. R-f (retriever-free) means no external page/document retriever is used. C2F (coarse-to-fine) means the method starts from coarse document view and then acquires finer evidence. Itr (iterative) means explicit multi-turn evidence acquisition. Rgn (region) means region-level evidence acquisition rather than page-level. MPDoc., MMLD., and LDoc. refer to MP-DocVQA, MMLongBench-Doc, and LongDocURL, respectively. †Prior work commonly reports ANLS on DUDE and MP-DocVQA, while our InSight-doc results are evaluated with the same LLM-as-judge protocol used for our main experiments across benchmarks.
Method	Backbone	Param.	R-f	C2F	Itr	Rgn	DUDE	MPDoc.	MMLD.	LDoc.
Retrieval-based methods
GPT-4o + ColPali	GPT-4o	–	✗	✗	✗	✗	–	–	30.8	–
CREAM	Pix2Struct + LLaMA2	7B	✗	✓	✗	✗	52.5	74.3	–	–
M3DocRAG	Qwen2-VL	7B	✗	✗	✗	✗	39.5	84.4	21.0	35.1
VisRAG	MiniCPM-V 2.6	8B	✗	✗	✗	✗	43.1	–	18.8	41.9
SV-RAG	InternVL2	4B	✗	✗	✗	✗	45.0	71.0	23.0	–
VDocRAG	Phi3-Vision	4B	✗	✗	✗	✗	44.0	62.6	18.4	39.8
MoLoRAG	Qwen2.5-VL	7B	✗	✗	✗	✗	–	–	41.0	51.9
URaG	Qwen2.5-VL	7B	✗	✓	✗	✗	57.6	88.2	33.8	52.2
Iterative, coarse-to-fine, and structured reasoning methods
Doc-React	GPT-4o	–	✗	✗	✓	✗	–	–	38.3	–
VRAG-RL	Qwen2.5-VL	7B	✗	✓	✓	✓	–	–	26.6	44.9
CogDoc	Qwen2.5-VL	7B	✓	✓	✗	✗	46.2	75.0	33.0	–
DocR1	Qwen2.5-VL	7B	✓	✓	✗	✗	54.4	87.5	–	–
DocSeeker	Qwen2.5-VL	7B	✓	✗	✗	✗	57.4	86.2	40.1	51.7
Doc-V⋆	Qwen2.5-VL	7B	✗	✓	✓	✗	64.5	86.2	42.1	56.3
MM-Doc-R1	Qwen3 + Qwen2.5-VL	8B	✗	✓	✓	✗	–	–	49.7	–
InSight-doc (r=0.25)	Qwen3-VL	8B	✓	✓	✓	✓	†70.1†	†83.4†	50.0	57.3
InSight-doc (r=0.35)	Qwen3-VL	8B	✓	✓	✓	✓	†72.1†	†86.3†	55.1	63.2
InSight-doc (r=0.5)	Qwen3-VL	8B	✓	✓	✓	✓	†73.8†	†87.6†	57.8	65.6
InSight-doc (r=0.7)	Qwen3-VL	8B	✓	✓	✓	✓	†73.8†	†88.2†	58.5	67.0

Table 18: Controlled proxy comparison with retrieval-assisted page-level evidence selection on the 200 longest documents from each of MMLongBench-Doc and LongDocURL. The ColQwen2.5 baseline retrieves the top-K pages and feeds them to Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct, approximating the external-retriever setting used by Doc-V⋆ while controlling the answer-generation backbone.
Method	Setting	Acc. (%)	Avg. Tokens
Qwen3-VL-8B + ColQwen2.5	Top-8 pages	43.4	∼28K
InSight-doc-8B	50 DPI	48.8	∼22K
Qwen3-VL-8B + ColQwen2.5	Top-16 pages	49.1	∼57K
InSight-doc-8B	70 DPI	56.2	∼41K
Qwen3-VL-8B + ColQwen2.5	Top-32 pages	53.5	∼104K
InSight-doc-8B	100 DPI	57.9	∼81K

Findings

Across four document QA benchmarks, average accuracy at low resolution reached 66.9%, 16.4 points above the base model; at medium resolution it reached 72.6%, 4.3 points above the base model.
On the longest-document subset, InSight-doc at 70 DPI achieved 56.2% accuracy using 42.4k tokens, versus 53.2% accuracy and 136.8k tokens for the 140-DPI baseline, a 69% token reduction while accuracy improved.
On MMLongBench-Doc, InSight-doc answered in 9.3 seconds at 55.6% accuracy versus 21.2 seconds at 52.0% accuracy for the 140-DPI baseline.
F1 scores on unanswerable questions at low resolution improved by 24.6 points on DUDE and 25.9 points on MMLongBench-Doc over the base model.
Adding RL after SFT further raised average accuracy from 56.6% to 66.9% at low resolution and from 64.6% to 72.6% at medium resolution.

Where it can be used

Question-answering systems over long, visually rich documents such as research papers or financial reports where cost and latency need to be reduced without losing accuracy.
Document-based chatbots or review tools that need to avoid fabricating answers when no supporting evidence exists in the document.
Designing similar visual-search agents that locate needed regions themselves rather than relying on an external retriever.

Limits and open work

Experiments used only one base model, Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct; other model families or more recent models have not been tested.
Reinforcement learning used only a simple binary correctness reward; more advanced RL methods or reward designs were not explored.
The closest competing method, Doc-V★, has not released its training data, checkpoints, or code, so comparisons against it and other prior methods use cross-paper numbers that differ in backbone, resolution, and evaluation protocol and should be read as contextual rather than fully controlled.
Evaluations capped documents at 40 pages for some benchmarks; results without this cap showed larger accuracy drops, especially on LongDocURL, indicating the capped setting may hide some difficulty of truly long documents.

Why it matters

This shows a practical way to make AI systems that read long, image-heavy documents (reports, papers) both cheaper/faster and less prone to making up unsupported answers. It offers concrete data-construction methods and measured numbers that practitioners can reference when building document-understanding tools.

Terms in this paper

Context rot · The phenomenon where an AI model's performance degrades sharply as the input text/context gets longer.
Zoom-in · The action of cropping and magnifying a specific region from the original high-resolution image.
SFT (supervised fine-tuning) · Training a model by having it imitate labeled demonstration examples.
RL (reinforcement learning) · Training a model to improve its own behavior using only a reward signal, such as whether the final answer was correct.
GRPO · The specific reinforcement learning algorithm used in this work.
LLM-as-judge · An evaluation method where another AI model judges whether an answer is correct.

Original abstract (English)

Long-document understanding often requires reasoning over many visually rich pages, making inference costly and prone to context rot. In this work, we propose InSight-doc, an agentic visual perception framework that treats visual resolution as an adaptive reasoning-time resource. InSight-doc starts from low resolution and selectively zooms into high-resolution regions for finer evidence, without relying on any external retriever. To train such an agent, we construct an active-perception corpus of 17.9K high-quality SFT examples with region-level zoom-in trajectories, accompanied by 19.2K hard RL examples. Through SFT+RL, InSight-doc-8B improves the baseline by 4.3--16.4 accuracy points over document VQA benchmarks. On long documents, it reduces hallucination by more than 40% and inference latency by 41%--68% while maintaining an accuracy lead. Our code, datasets, and model are released at https://github.com/m-Just/InSight-doc .

Authors · Kaican Li

Read on arXiv

Latest papers

All papers →

Latest from METAL MEDIA

Figures: Kaican Li et al., arXiv:2608.10628, CC BY 4.0