Multi-hop question answering often fails when retrieval treats evidence as isolated matches to the original question, since the facts needed to answer a complex question are usually connected through intermediate entities, relations, and constraints. We propose HyperProve, a retrieval-augmented QA framework that addresses this challenge by coupling question decomposition with answer-conditioned expansion over a hypergraph of atomic facts. HyperProve does not use atomic facts, hypergraphs, or iterative retrieval in isolation; instead, it carries intermediate answers and supporting hyperedges as retrieval state, then uses that state to bias the next local hypergraph expansion. This design enables HyperProve to construct coherent evidence chains for final answer generation while making the retrieval process stateful and fact-centered. Across multi-hop QA benchmarks, HyperProve achieves the best overall performance in our evaluation, outperforming the strongest baselines by an average relative improvement of 6.2% in answer accuracy and 4.9% in F1.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Case study of a 4-hop question: PropRAG fails to connect Last Supper to Peter and drifts to the distractor chain Venice → Republic of Venice ; HyperProve succeeds because atomic-fact hyperedges explicitly preserve the bridge entities and correct path.
Figure 2: Overall HyperProve pipeline. The system builds an offline synonym-aware atomic-fact hypergraph from corpus passages, then performs online answer-guided multi-hop reasoning by decomposing a question into sub-queries, carrying intermediate answers as bridge entities, expanding over local hypergraph neighborhoods, and integrating the resulting evidence chain into a final answer.
MuSiQue
HotpotQA
2Wiki
Method
Acc.
EM
F1
Acc.
EM
F1
Acc.
EM
F1
Dense Retrieval
Contriever
47.80 ± 0.28
22.30 ± 0.30
32.10 ± 0.26
55.55 ± 0.21
44.40 ± 0.24
57.50 ± 0.21
69.60 ± 0.20
38.50 ± 0.24
43.70 ± 0.21
BGE-M3
51.50 ± 0.25
27.80 ± 0.27
39.70 ± 0.24
68.12 ± 0.19
47.80 ± 0.22
61.80 ± 0.19
72.18 ± 0.18
48.20 ± 0.22
54.50 ± 0.19
Structured Retrieval
HippoRAG2
52.00 ± 0.36
37.20 ± 0.40
48.60 ± 0.34
81.70 ± 0.29
62.70 ± 0.33
75.50 ± 0.29
86.40 ± 0.28
65.00 ± 0.34
71.00 ± 0.29
Table 1: Mean ± standard deviation over three runs on multi-hop QA benchmarks. We report LLM-as-a-judge answer accuracy, Exact Match (EM), and token-level F1. Best means are in bold ; second-best means are underlined .
Variant
Overall
2-hop
3-hop
4-hop
HyperProve
71.60
78.00
72.96
49.40
w/o bridge entity
64.50
69.11
67.41
44.58
w/o fresh dense seed
61.30
71.24
59.18
34.34
w/o decomposition
51.28
58.11
49.05
33.73
w/o Ts
62.13
67.02
64.65
42.06
w/o query transition
58.17
65.20
58.60
35.40
Table 2: Accuracy breakdown of HyperProve ablations on MuSiQue by reasoning depth. Accuracy is computed using judge verdicts over 1000 questions: 518 2-hop, 316 3-hop, and 166 4-hop examples.
Method
Recall@10
Avg Gain
MuSiQue
HotpotQA
2Wiki
After Hop 1
HyperProve
82.31
96.20
98.15
+41.24
ChainRAG
67.42
89.45
75.85
+26.35
HopRAG
66.63
82.82
84.17
+25.98
Table 3: Evidence chain faithfulness across multi-hop benchmarks. Dataset columns report Recall@10, computed as the average fraction of gold passages retrieved in the top 10 results. Avg Gain after Hop 1 measures the average increase in cumulative gold-passage coverage after the first hop.
Figure 3: Hop-wise cumulative support coverage. Cumulative gold-passage coverage increases across hops, showing that later sub-queries progressively recover missing support evidence.
System
Top-10 Coverage
Retrieval / Reasoning Behavior
Final Answer
HyperProve
4 / 4
Separately resolves Pathology → San Diego and Still Swingin’ → Papa Roach → California , then applies the rank query to San Diego under the California urban-area constraint.
third-largest
ChainRAG
2 / 4
Retrieves evidence for Pathology → San Diego and Still Swingin’ → Papa Roach , but misses the facts needed to bind Papa Roach → Vacaville, California and San Diego urban area → third-largest in California . Its reader is then pulled to a nearby city-rank answer.
2nd
Table 4: Qualitative comparison on a multi-entity MuSiQue example. HyperProve retrieves the complete evidence chain and preserves the urban-area constraint, while ChainRAG retrieves only partial evidence and confuses city population rank with urban-area rank.
Method
Extraction
Calls
Tokens
Cost source
HyperGraphRAG
Facts+entities
11,656
20.9M
Normalized est.
PropRAG
Entities+props.
23,312
21.1M
Reported measure
HGRAG
Entities
11,656
5.7M
Normalized est.
HyperProve
Entities+facts
23,312
20.8M
Measured artifacts
Table 5: Offline and online efficiency on MuSiQue. Panel (a) explicitly separates measured or reported costs from estimates normalized to the 11,656-passage corpus and the same token accounting. Panel (b) reports measured inference over 1,000 questions. All token and latency values exclude answer-judge cost.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Category
Retrieval Unit
Multi-step
Main Role
Contriever
Dense Retrieval
Passage
No
Unsupervised dense retrieval baseline
BGE-M3
Dense Retrieval
Passage
No
Strong dense retriever and HyperProve seed retriever
HippoRAG2
Structured RAG
Passage + Triples
Yes
Associative graph retrieval baseline
PropRAG
Structured RAG
Propositions
Yes
Structured fact retrieval baseline
HyperGraphRAG
Structured RAG
Propositions
Yes
Hypergraph-structured retrieval baseline
HGRAG
Structured RAG
Propositions
Yes
Entity–passage hypergraph baseline
Appendix
Table 9: Summary of baseline methods and retrieval units. HyperProve differs from prior methods by combining atomic-fact hyperedges with answer-guided, stateful expansion over local hypergraph neighborhoods.
Depth
Fallbacks
Questions
Rate
2-hop
41
518
7.92%
3-hop
38
316
12.03%
4-hop
44
166
26.51%
Overall
123
1,000
12.30%
Appendix
Table 6: Reader-fallback frequency by annotated reasoning depth on MuSiQue.
α
θ
Recall
EM
F1
Acc.
0.50
0.40
82.31
42.83
59.23
71.60
0.25
0.40
81.18
42.41
58.76
70.80
0.75
0.40
83.06
43.12
59.61
71.40
0.50
0.30
83.45
41.97
58.49
70.30
0.50
0.50
81.72
43.05
59.40
71.90
Appendix
Table 7: MuSiQue sensitivity to structural-transition weight α and query-transition threshold θ . The first row is the default configuration.
Dataset
Questions
Passages
Entities
Hyperedges
2WikiMultiHopQA
1,000
6,119
57,906
55,032
HotpotQA
1,000
9,812
112,308
99,394
MuSiQue
1,000
11,656
117,894
105,542
Appendix
Table 8: Dataset statistics for the 1,000-question evaluation subsets.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on a hidden-bridge MuSiQue example. HyperProve carries intermediate answers as bridge entities, enabling retrieval around Stanton Moore , New Orleans , and the Battle of New Orleans . In contrast, HippoRAG2 over-emphasizes broad surface terms from the original question and misses the hidden evidence chain.
A central bottleneck in multi-hop Question Answering (QA) is that the granularity at which a question is expressed often differs from the granularity at which corpus evidence is retrievable. Existing methods address this mismatch by imposing fixed graph structures over the corpus, by iteratively reformulating the query, or by executing a generated program over it, but these strategies do not explicitly decide when a query unit is already supported by evidence and when it should be refined. We formulate this bottleneck as retrievable granularity discovery and introduce Hi-Q, an evidence-conditioned framework for hierarchical query refinement. At each query node, a resolution operator tests whether retrieved evidence supports the current query unit; resolved nodes terminate, while unresolved nodes are expanded by a dependency-preserving binary operator and checked by a semantic coverage verifier. Hi-Q therefore grows a query tree whose topology is determined by corpus support signals rather than by a fixed decomposition template or a pre-built graph. We evaluate Hi-Q on three multi-hop QA benchmarks, primarily under full-corpus retrieval, where dependent evidence must be located among open-domain distractors rather than within a small annotated pool. In this setting Hi-Q reaches 52.3 EM and 64.0 F1 averaged over the three benchmarks, ahead of the iterative retrieval baseline IRCoT by 15.1 EM / 18.2 F1 on that same average, and ahead of the graph-based RAG baseline PropRAG by 11.5 EM / 12.0 F1 on MuSiQue-full, without corpus-wide graph construction. In the restricted supporting/distractor setting used by prior work, Hi-Q likewise attains the best accuracy, with 57.9 EM and 69.3 F1 on average, ahead of PropRAG by 5.6 EM / 3.9 F1 and IRCoT by 13.7 EM / 15.8 F1. The project page is available at https://hi-q-project.github.io/.
Jueun Kim, Sungho Park, Wook-Shin Han
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, POSTECH · Graduate School of Artificial Intelligence, POSTECH
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) critically depends on retrieving the evidence necessary for effective reasoning. However, this remains particularly challenging in multi-hop question answering (QA), where supporting passages are often linked through intermediate entities and relations that must be progressively uncovered. Existing retrieval approaches typically rely on a single retrieval intent or one-shot query expansion, limiting their ability to adapt to newly retrieved evidence and potentially introducing noisy or redundant retrieval signals. To address these limitations, we propose a training-free multi-hop retrieval framework that integrates evidence-conditioned exploration, passage-specific contrastive refinement, and coverage-aware final ranking. During offline indexing, the framework constructs passage-specific contrastive facets that characterize each passage relative to its semantically similar neighbors, providing fine-grained signals to distinguish closely related candidates. At inference time, the framework iteratively retrieves evidence, generates probes targeting unresolved information needs, refines candidate relevance using the contrastive facets, and selects a complementary set of passages that collectively cover diverse evidence-seeking intents. Experiments on MuSiQue, HotpotQA, and 2WikiMultihopQA demonstrate consistent improvements in retrieval quality and downstream QA performance over baselines.
Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities, with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) supporting complex multi-hop reasoning by retrieving evidence distributed across documents. Graph-based approaches exploit connections among evidence, and hypergraph-based retrieval further preserves higher-order entity associations within documents and connects documents through shared entities. However, existing hypergraph retrievers often rely on predefined structural expansion or diffusion, which may miss query-dependent interactions needed to identify relevant evidence. They also leave connections among retrieved evidence implicit, requiring LLMs to reconstruct these connections before reasoning. Therefore, we propose HyperReCo, a framework for retrieving and connecting evidence with a hypergraph neural network (HyperGNN). We represent each document as a hyperedge over its extracted entities, with shared entities connecting the hyperedges. Through hypergraph message passing with joint supervision over documents and entities, the HyperGNN learns query-dependent interactions to retrieve complementary evidence. We further introduce Gradient-Guided Hyper-Path Decoding (GGHD), which uses gradient attribution to interpret the learned interactions and translate them into explicit hyper-paths that help LLMs combine complementary facts for multi-hop reasoning. Experiments on six benchmarks show that HyperReCo achieves the best retrieval performance among the compared methods on all three multi-hop QA datasets, together with strong downstream QA performance. Case studies and further analyses demonstrate the utility of decoded hyper-paths for connecting retrieved evidence.
Zicheng Zhao, Linhao Luo, Junnan Dong +4
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Singapore University of Technology and Design · Monash University +3