Index  |  Benchmarks  |  Mathematics  |  Graph  |  About
SRCH:545CF75E

PRISM: Agentic Retrieval with LLMs for Multi-Hop Question Answering

Submitted: 27 May 2026
Review score: 8.17/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Quality tier: DOI grade
Verified claims: 6
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20413352

Abstract

Abstract: Retrieval plays a central role in multi-hop question answering (QA), where answering complex questions requires gathering multiple pieces of evidence. We introduce an Agentic Retrieval System that leverages large language models (LLMs) in a structured loop to retrieve relevant evidence with high precision and recall. Our framework consists of three specialized agents: a Question Analyzer that decomposes a multi-hop question into sub-questions, a Selector that identifies the most relevant context for each sub-question (focusing on precision), and an Adder that brings in any missing evidence (fo

Research Question

Does the robustness of LLMs to irrelevant context in multi-hop QA generalize across different reasoning benchmarks (e.g., MuSiQue, 2WikiMultihopQA) when using large context windows versus iterative retrieval, as measured by F1 and precision under controlled distractor insertion?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims6
Claim record sourcenot publicly specified

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Quality Tier

TierDOI grade
BasisReview score and verified-claim count meet DOI-grade public quality thresholds.

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Evidence strength MEDIUM
Citation grounding MEDIUM
Uncertainty disclosure MEDIUM
Reproducibility status HIGH

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

StatusCURRENT
Correction count0
Manifest contractpaper-manifest-v1.1
Correction contractcorrection-record-v1

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance

PublisherAssignee Research
Public provenanceL4, External archival record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordRegistered
Claim lineage6 aggregate source-grounded claims
Review methodAutomated multi-reviewer assessment
Quality guideHow to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links
Provenance contractsource-provenance-v1
NoteMachine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research.