Index  |  Benchmarks  |  Mathematics  |  Graph  |  About
SRCH:C34B922D

Question Decomposition for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Submitted: 27 May 2026
Review score: 7.83/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Quality tier: DOI grade
Verified claims: 6
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20416285

Abstract

Abstract: Grounding large language models (LLMs) in verifiable external sources is a well-established strategy for generating reliable answers. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is one such approach, particularly effective for tasks like question answering: it retrieves passages that are semantically related to the question and then conditions the model on this evidence. However, multi-hop questions, such as"Which company among NVIDIA, Apple, and Google made the biggest profit in 2023?,"challenge RAG because relevant facts are often distributed across multiple documents rather than co-occurring in on

Research Question

What is the accuracy drop of LLM-based answer generation in multi-hop RAG systems when using adversarial query perturbations (e.g., synonym substitution, negation) compared to single-hop queries, evaluated on the BEIR benchmark with dense vs. sparse retrievers?

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.