Index  |  Benchmarks  |  Mathematics  |  Graph  |  About
SRCH:B65D66B6

Evaluating Multi-Hop Reasoning in RAG Systems: A Comparison of LLM-Based Retriev

Submitted: 27 May 2026
Review score: 7.50/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Quality tier: DOI grade
Verified claims: 8
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20415620

Abstract

Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enhances large language models (LLMs) with external knowledge to answer questions more accurately. However, research on evaluating RAG systems-particularly the retriever component-remains limited, as most existing work focuses on single-context retrieval rather than multi-hop queries, where individual contexts may appear irrelevant in isolation but are essential when combined. In this research, we use the HotPotQA, MuSiQue, and SQuAD datasets to simulate a RAG system and compare three LLM-as-judge evaluation strategies, including our proposed Context-Awar

Research Question

How does the trade-off between context window length and retrieval step count affect inference throughput and end-to-end latency for multi-hop QA on MuSiQue, and does this efficiency scaling differ between 7B and 70B parameter models?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims8
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 lineage8 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.