Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities across various tasks but remain prone to hallucinations in knowledge-intensive scenarios. Knowledge Base Question Answering (KBQA) mitigates this by grounding generation in Knowledge Graphs (KGs). However, most multi-hop KBQA methods rely on explicit edge traversal, making them fragile to KG incompleteness. In this paper, we proposed a novel graph-based soft prompting framework that shifts the reasoning paradigm from node-level path traversal to subgraph-level reasoning. Specifically, we employ a Graph Neural Network (GNN) to encode extracted structural subgraphs into soft prompts, enabling LLM to reason over richer structural context and identify relevant entities beyond immediate graph neighbors, thereby reducing sensitivity to missing edges. Furthermore, we introduce a two-stage paradigm that reduces computational cost while preserving good performance: a lightweight LLM first leverages the soft prompts to identify question-relevant entities and relations, followed by a more powerful LLM for evidence-aware answer generation. Experiments on four multi-hop KBQA benchmarks show that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance on three of them, demonstrating its effectiveness. Code is available at the repository: https://github.com/Wangshuaiia/GraSP.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An example of reasoning over an incomplete knowledge graph. Existing methods (middle) solely rely on explicit edges and fail to perform multi-hop reasoning under graph incompleteness (e.g. missing edges). Our method (bottom) overcomes this limitation by exploiting implicit relations in the graph structure.
Method
IKGWQ
CWQ-IKG
WebQSP-IKG
ToG Sun et al. (2024)
58.6 ±2.4
59.2 ±2.3
70.2 ±1.7
DoM Liu et al. (2026)
59.1 ±1.3
60.7 ±1.5
75.8 ±1.8
GoG Xu et al. (2024)
60.3 ±3.4
61.4 ±2.7
78.1 ±2.4
iQUEST Wang and Yu (2025)
60.1 ±1.6
59.7 ±1.4
79.3 ±1.2
KBQA-o1 Luo et al. (2025)
61.1 ±1.2
63.9 ±2.6
80.1 ±0.9
LMP Wan et al. (2025)
62.7 ±2.2
64.3 ±1.4
80.6 ±1.7
Table 1: Performance comparison on three incomplete KGQA datasets (Hits@1). We re-implemented all baselines using GPT-5.2 for fair comparison. “ ± ” denotes the standard variation. “ ∗ ” ( p<0.05 ), “ ∗∗ ” ( p<0.01 ), and “ ∗∗∗ ” ( p<0.001 ) denote statistically significant improvements over LMP under the t -test.
Method
Incomplete KG Benchmarks
Standard KBQA Benchmarks
IKGWQ
CWQ-IKG
WebQSP-IKG
CWQ
WebQSP
WebQuestion
GrailQA
GraSP (GPT-20B as LLMselect )
65.52
68.57
83.91
82.58
93.63
84.32
83.99
Without Soft Prompt
61.68
63.92
79.64
78.72
89.42
81.28
78.46
Triplet-based Representation
62.37
65.41
81.26
79.63
92.13
82.26
80.74
Text-based Soft Prompt
63.18
66.02
82.17
80.15
92.41
83.55
81.63
GraSP (Qwen-30B-A3B as LLMselect )
64.42
67.12
81.23
82.28
93.16
84.07
83.46
Table 2: Ablation study of the graph-based soft prompting.
Figure 3: Results on CWQ under Knowledge Graph Incompleteness.
Method
Incomplete KG Benchmarks
Standard KBQA Benchmarks
IKGWQ
CWQ-IKG
WebQSP-IKG
CWQ
WebQSP
WebQuestion
GrailQA
Qwen3-0.6B (freeze)
48.36
51.42
66.75
61.73
69.14
58.05
62.48
Qwen3-0.6B (Finetune)
58.21 (+9.85)
60.93 (+9.51)
77.46 (+10.71)
71.31 (+9.58)
81.14 (+12.00)
68.52 (+10.47)
69.87 (+7.39)
Qwen3-8B (freeze)
57.84
60.91
77.62
72.55
81.54
72.31
65.38
Qwen3-8B (Finetune)
64.13 (+6.29)
67.39 (+6.48)
82.48 (+4.86)
80.85 (+8.30)
88.86 (+7.32)
78.40 (+6.09)
79.16 (+13.78)
GPT-20B (freeze)
60.08
63.24
78.37
77.21
86.34
78.28
76.13
Table 3: Performance comparison with different LLMselect settings.
CWQ
WebQSP
WebQuestion
GrailQA
1-Hop
79.07
90.87
82.01
81.29
2-Hop
82.58
93.63
84.32
83.99
3-Hop
76.47
85.98
80.21
78.66
Table 4: Performance comparison of different hop settings on four standard benchmarks.
Method
Metrics
1-Hop
2-Hop
3-Hop
ToG
# LLM call
2.2
5.6
8.3
Run time (s)
3.16
11.76
17.51
LMP
# LLM call
2.3
4.9
7.3
Run time (s)
3.45
9.76
15.38
Ours
# LLM call
1.3 + 1.1
3.6 + 2.2
5.3 + 2.6
Run time (s)
2.50
4.75
7.60
Table 5: Comparison of LLM call counts and runtime across different hop settings for our method and baseline approaches. For our method, calls to the lightweight LLM are shown in green , while calls to the powerful LLM are shown in red .
Dataset
Train
Test
Complexity
Reasoning
Annotation
IKGQA
-
200
Incomplete KG
Multi-hop
Ans. only
CWQ-IKG
27,689
1,000
Incomplete KG
Multi-hop
Ans. only
WebQSP-IKG
3,098
1,000
Incomplete KG
Multi-hop (most)
Ans. only
CWQ
27,689
3,531
Complex Qs
Multi-hop
SPARQL, Ans.
WebQSP
3,098
1,639
Moderate Qs
Multi-hop (most)
SPARQL, Ans.
WebQuestion
3,778
2,032
Simple–Moderate Qs
Single-hop (most)
Ans. only
Table 6: Overview of datasets.
Method
Multi-hop reasoning
Generalization
CWQ
WebQSP
WebQuestion
GrailQA
EmbedKGQA Saxena et al. (2022)
55.7
67.0
60.3
52.2
ToG Sun et al. (2024)
69.5
82.1
72.8
69.4
KBQA-o1 Luo et al. (2025)
72.0
88.3
82.5
72.9
KG-Agent Jiang et al. (2025)
72.2 ∗
83.3 ∗
–
86.1 ∗
iQUEST Wang and Yu (2025)
73.8 ∗
88.9 ∗
81.2 ∗
73.5 ∗
Table 7: Performance comparison on four KBQA datasets. Results marked with ‘*’ are taken directly from the corresponding original papers. Bold numbers indicate the best performance , while underlined numbers denote the second-best (Hits@1).
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
CWQ
WebQSP
RoG Luo et al. (2024b)
62.6 ∗
85.7 ∗
GNN-RAG ( 2024 )
62.8 ∗
82.8 ∗
PoG Tan et al. (2025)
65.1
86.2
LightPROF Ao et al. (2025)
59.3 ∗
83.8 ∗
MemQ Xu et al. (2025a)
80.3 ∗
84.1 ∗
KaeDe Bu et al. (2025)
88.3 ∗
91.1 ∗
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison with different baselines.
Select LLM
CWQ
WebQSP
WebQuestion
GrailQA
Qwen3-0.6B
61.73
69.14
58.05
62.48
Qwen3-0.6B (Finetune)
71.31
81.14
68.52
69.87
Qwen3-1.7B
66.24
74.53
60.72
63.28
Qwen3-1.7B (Finetune)
73.40
84.51
71.96
72.58
Qwen3-4B
69.66
79.68
69.01
63.09
Qwen3-4B (Finetune)
77.07
86.83
76.52
77.16
Appendix
Table 9: Performance comparison of different select LLMs.
Answer LLM
CWQ
WebQSP
WebQuestion
GrailQA
Qwen3-8B
54.58
68.97
64.88
52.17
Qwen-30B-A3B
61.91
75.65
69.49
64.18
GPT-oss-20b
67.90
79.98
71.74
72.88
LLaMA3.3-70B
68.81
79.76
74.97
70.82
GPT-oss-120b
75.03
84.75
79.42
78.01
GPT-4o
77.64
90.95
82.39
79.82
Appendix
Table 10: Performance comparison of different answer LLMs.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly combined with knowledge graphs (KGs) to ground reasoning in structured evidence. However, most LLM-based KGQA methods rely on traversing existing graph edges and become unreliable when reasoning paths are broken by missing facts. Alternatives that ask LLMs to generate missing knowledge risk introducing hallucinated evidence. We introduce XoG (eXplore-over-Graph), a framework for multi-hop question answering over incomplete KGs that recovers missing reasoning paths from learned graph structure rather than LLM parametric knowledge. XoG combines type-level entity-relation statistics to identify candidate relations with KG embeddings to retrieve plausible missing entities, using the LLM as a semantic selector and reasoner. These mechanisms are integrated into an iterative planning-exploration-reasoning process. Experiments on WebQSP, CWQ, and the Wikidata-based BRINK benchmark show that XoG remains competitive on complete KGs and consistently outperforms comparable methods without task-specific KGQA training under KG incompleteness. These gains persist across multiple LLM backbones, indicating that stronger LLMs alone do not resolve missing graph evidence. XoG also reduces LLM token consumption by up to 33% compared with a closely related planning-based approach.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in question answering, yet they still frequently suffer from hallucinations on knowledge-intensive tasks. Knowledge graphs (KGs) provide LLMs with structured, interpretable, and updatable factual grounding, making them a promising external knowledge source for reliable reasoning. However, existing LLM-guided graph reasoning methods typically rely on hop-wise greedy or beam-style pruning during evidence retrieval. Such local decision processes are inherently myopic: evidence that appears weak near the source may become crucial only after deeper graph context is explored, causing answer-critical branches to be discarded prematurely and making the reasoning chain difficult to recover. To address this limitation, we propose Foresight-over-Graph (FoG), a foresight-aware evidence retrieval framework for knowledge base question answering (KBQA). FoG iteratively constructs a question-relevant evidence subgraph and uses far-to-near feedback to guide path exploration, and maintains a compact memory subgraph to support continued exploration. Extensive experiments on widely used KBQA benchmarks demonstrate that FoG achieves state-of-the-art performance, with a particularly large improvement of 16.58% in Hit on CWQ, while also reducing LLM calls and token usage. Our code is available at https://github.com/yhong7/FoG .
Yang Hong, Yajun Yang, Xin Wang +2
Tianjin University, Tianjin, China · Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China
Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive natural language capabilities but often struggle with knowledge-intensive reasoning tasks. Knowledge Base Question Answering (KBQA), which leverages structured Knowledge Graphs (KGs) exemplifies this challenge due to the need for accurate multi-hop reasoning. Existing approaches typically perform sequential reasoning steps guided by predefined pipelines, restricting flexibility and causing error cascades due to isolated reasoning at each step. To address these limitations, we propose KG-Hopper, a novel Reinforcement Learning (RL) framework that empowers compact open LLMs with the ability to perform integrated multi-hop KG reasoning within a single inference round. Rather than reasoning step-by-step, we train a Reasoning LLM that embeds the entire KG traversal and decision process into a unified ``thinking'' stage, enabling global reasoning over cross-step dependencies and dynamic path exploration with backtracking. Experimental results on eight KG reasoning benchmarks show that KG-Hopper, based on a 7B-parameter LLM, consistently outperforms larger multi-step systems (up to 70B) and achieves competitive performance with proprietary models such as GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4o-mini, while remaining compact, open, and data-efficient. The code is publicly available at: https://github.com/Wangshuaiia/KG-Hopper.
Shuai Wang, Yinan Yu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology and University of Gothenburg, SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden