Index  |  Benchmarks  |  Mathematics  |  Graph  |  About
SRCH:DC57EE91

Tree-Based Retrieval Stability in Multi-Hop Question Answering with Llama-3-8B-128K

Submitted: 30 May 2026
Review score: 5.83/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Quality tier: Watchlist
Verified claims: 9

Abstract

Abstract: This report synthesises findings from 11 peer-reviewed papers addressing the following research question: What is the impact of varying the number of retrieval hops (e.g., 2-hop vs. 3-hop) on the F1 score stability of the Tree of Reviews framework compared to chain-based retrieval in Llama-3-8B-128K when. Multi-hop question answering is a knowledge-intensive complex problem. Large Language Models (LLMs) use their Chain of Thoughts (CoT) capability to reason complex problems step by step, and retrieval-augmentation can effectively alleviate factual errors caused by outdated and. 9 claims were extracted from source literature; 3 were independently verified against retrieved documents. An automated multi-reviewer quality assessment produced a score of 5.8/10. This report is a machine-generated literature synthesis and does not constitute original research.

Research Question

What is the impact of varying the number of retrieval hops (e.g., 2-hop vs. 3-hop) on the F1 score stability of the Tree of Reviews framework compared to chain-based retrieval in Llama-3-8B-128K when evaluated on the MuSiQue benchmark?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims9
Claim record sourceparsed source sections

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

Quality Tier

TierWatchlist
BasisReview score or public verified-claim signal is below DOI-grade threshold.

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

Quality Dimensions

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

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 provenanceL3, Claim aggregate record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordNot registered
Claim lineage9 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.