Predictable Failure in Multi-Hop Retrieval: Score-Distributional Confidence Scoring and Abstention

Multi-hop question answering requires combining information from multiple documents to answer complex questions. These systems have grown increasingly capable, yet when they fail, the error is typically attributed to not finding the right documents. Whether this holds at the level of individual reasoning steps remains largely unexamined. We investigate this across three standard multi-hop QA benchmarks and find that failures decompose into two distinct modes: retrieval failures, where the needed passage was not retrieved, and extraction failures, where the passage was retrieved but the needed fact could not be extracted - a phenomenon we term the fact-grounding gap. Extraction failures account for nearly half of all per-hop deficiencies and are invisible to standard retrieval metrics. They remain unresolved by every retrieval intervention we test, establishing a ceiling for retrieval-only improvements. The gap's severity varies across benchmarks and question types, but extraction failures appear on every dataset we measure. Our findings reveal that retrieval failures and extraction failures are fundamentally different bottlenecks requiring different solutions - a distinction absent from current evaluation practice.

Multi-hop retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) requires an agent to retrieve evidence for a sequence of dependent sub-questions. When a wrong answer lacks a required passage, the passage may be inaccessible to the retriever, or the agent may have failed to issue a query that would retrieve it. Standard retrieval evaluations conflate these two causes. We study how much apparent retrieval failure is instead caused by search drift: the search no longer tracks an unanswered sub-question. Holding the retriever, corpus, and generation model fixed, we introduce ExecutionRAG, a training-free requirement register that records open sub-questions and their supporting evidence. The register changes search guidance but not evidence access, so each gold passage it recovers certifies that the passage was reachable by the original retriever. On 1,000 MuSiQue questions, the number of wrong answers with unretrieved required evidence falls from 382 to 234 with all-MiniLM-L6-v2 and from 383 to 274 with Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B. These counts correspond to 69% to 44% and 66% to 48% of each system's wrong answers, respectively. Crucially, evidence recovery does not produce a proportional reduction in total error: premature resolutions and abstentions increase as missing-evidence failures decrease. The central finding is therefore a shift in the remaining bottleneck, from guiding search toward required evidence to verifying that the retrieved evidence is sufficient.

Search-augmented large language model agents are increasingly capable of solving knowledge-intensive tasks, but their behavior when a multi-hop question is fundamentally unanswerable remains poorly understood. Existing abstention benchmarks largely expose defects at the surface of single-hop queries and therefore cannot reveal failures that emerge only after valid intermediate reasoning and retrieval. We introduce HopRefusalBench, the first controlled benchmark of refusal within multi-hop search, comprising 889 unanswerable questions constructed from KILT-grounded entity paths. It crosses three causes of unanswerability (answer unknown, false premise, and underspecified context) with root, middle, and terminal topologies, making premise verification, intermediate-bridge validation, and terminal stopping separately observable. We further propose a final-outcome taxonomy spanning target-aware refusal, pseudo-refusal, hallucinated completion, and search-budget exhaustion, together with source-aware trajectory metrics for post-trigger continuation and token waste. Across ten frontier proprietary and open-weight models in search-augmented mode, the best model achieves a target-aware correct halting rate (TCHR) of only 42.9%. Root and middle items are consistently harder than terminal items, and all models attain their highest TCHR on false premises and their lowest on underspecified questions. Yet when pooled across categories, 84.7--98.4% of each model's explicit refusal-like responses identify the correct rationale, localizing the main bottleneck to committing to an appropriate non-answer; failed trajectories instead diverge into hallucination or search-budget exhaustion. These results establish refusal in multi-hop search as a consequential evaluation problem and provide a foundation for diagnosing and improving the reliability of search-augmented agents.