Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Inference Scaled GraphRAG: Improving Multi Hop Question Answering on Knowledge Graphs

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that test-time compute scaling—more reasoning steps plus majority voting over sampled graph traversals—systematically improves multi-hop question answering on knowledge graphs, lifting GRBench F1 from 36.49 to 47.55…

desk verdict Useful within-method scaling result on GRBench, but the headline SOTA gain over GraphCoT rests on an unverified baseline equivalence and should be treated cautiously until code and original baseline runs are released. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19967 v1 pith:JWSZFSHN submitted 2025-06-24 cs.CL cs.AI

Travis Thompson , Seung-Hwan Lim , Paul Liu , Ruoying He , Dongkuan Xu This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords inference-timescalingmulti-hopquestionansweringknowledgegraphsGraphRAGchain-of-thoughtmajorityvotingtest-timecomputeGRBench
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs can be improved by spending more compute at inference time, with no retraining and no change to the language model. The method wraps graph traversal in a reasoning-action-execution loop: the model plans, calls one of four graph functions, sees the result, and repeats. Increasing the number of allowed steps is sequential scaling; sampling several thought-action pairs and majority-voting on the interaction call is parallel scaling. On GRBench, the strongest budget raises F1 from 28.87 for plain GraphRAG and 36.49 for prior GraphCoT to 47.55, and it doubles hard-question accuracy. If the result holds, inference-time compute becomes a practical, architecture-agnostic lever for structured knowledge reasoning.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the interleaved reasoning-action-execution loop: the LLM alternates between a Thought step, an Interaction step that emits one of four graph function calls (RetrieveNode, NodeFeature, NeighborCheck, NodeDegree), and an Execution step that feeds the graph output back as context. Sequential scaling increases the number of such loops, while parallel scaling samples multiple thought-action pairs and uses majority voting to pick the action. Budget forcing caps both axes, making the tradeoff between compute and accuracy explicit.

What would settle it

Run the original GraphCoT code on GRBench with its published step and sampling settings under Llama3.1-8B; if it matches or beats the 47.55 F1 of the 50-step, 16-vote configuration, the claimed scaling advantage disappears. A simpler check is to recompute the averages using all nine claimed GRBench domains instead of the six tabulated in the results.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that adding inference-time compute to graph traversal—by letting the LLM take more reasoning-interaction steps and by majority-voting over sampled thought-action pairs—systematically improves multi-hop QA on knowledge graphs. On GRBench with Llama3.1-8B, the strongest budget (50 steps, 16 votes) raises F1 from 28.87 for GraphRAG and 36.49 for GraphCoT to 47.55, and it doubles accuracy on hard questions from 15.26% to 31.44%. The authors present these gains as evidence that inference scaling is a general and training-free route to better structured knowledge reasoning.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the 10-step, 1-vote configuration being a faithful reproduction of the GraphCoT baseline, because the headline 30.3% improvement is measured from that anchor rather than from the original method's own settings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Increasing the reasoning-step budget from 10 to 50 while holding one vote raises average F1 on GRBench, and adding majority voting up to 16 samples adds further gains, so test-time compute can substitute for retraining in graph reasoning.
  • The gains appear across three model backbones (Llama3.1-8B, Mixtral-8x7B, and Qwen3-32B), with Qwen3-32B reaching approximately 64 F1 at maximum scaling, indicating the approach is architecture-agnostic.
  • On medium and hard questions, the maximum configuration improves performance by 18.82% on average over the no-scaling baseline, with sequential scaling as the primary driver of the improvement.
  • Budget forcing gives practitioners a predictable way to set step counts and vote counts to match a cost target while still improving answer quality.
  • The best configuration reaches 47.55 F1 and 34.33 RougeL on GRBench, exceeding both GraphRAG (28.87 F1) and the prior traversal method GraphCoT (36.49 F1).

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the scaling trend holds beyond GRBench, the same reasoning-action-execution loop could be applied to any queryable structured environment, such as SQL databases or programmatic APIs, making test-time compute a general retriever-improvement strategy.
  • Parallel scaling is applied only at the level of individual interaction calls; a direct comparison of majority voting at the trajectory level versus the step level would test whether the modest parallel gains come from action selection or from variance reduction in the final answer.
  • Replacing frequency-based voting with confidence- or correctness-weighted selection could address the paper's noted failure mode where incorrect but frequent trajectories dominate, and would likely widen the parallel-scaling gains.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Inference-Scaled GraphRAG, an LLM-based agent that iteratively reasons over a knowledge graph through function calls (RetrieveNode, NodeFeature, NodeDegree, NeighborCheck) in an interleaved thought-action-observation loop. It studies inference-time scaling by varying the maximum number of reasoning steps (sequential scaling) and the number of sampled thought-action pairs aggregated by majority voting at the interaction level (parallel scaling). On the GRBench benchmark with Llama-3.1-8B, Mixtral-8x7B, and Qwen3-32B backbones, it reports that larger step and vote budgets generally improve F1 and RougeL, and it claims a 64.7% improvement over a GraphRAG baseline and a 30.3% improvement over GraphCoT, plus a doubling of hard-question accuracy.

Significance. If the within-method scaling trend holds, the paper demonstrates a training-free, architecture-agnostic lever for improving KGQA: allocating more steps or samples at inference time improves performance. The paper includes full prompting templates in the appendix, which supports reproducibility, and it evaluates three model backbones, which is a genuine strength. The claimed gains over prior work, however, rest on an unverified identification of the authors' 10-step/1-vote configuration with the GraphCoT baseline, and the reported nine-domain average is not visible in the tables. These issues must be resolved before the headline significance claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 1, Appendix A.3] The headline comparison against GraphCoT (30.3% improvement, 47.55 vs 36.49 F1) depends on the assertion that the '10 steps, votes=1' row is equivalent to GraphCoT with no inference scaling. The manuscript states in Section 4.2 that the authors 'retain their prompting style and retrieval mechanisms, and only vary the underlying model,' but the row is produced by the authors' own pipeline with an explicit 10-step budget. The GraphCoT function-definition prompt in Appendix A.3 instructs the model that it 'may take as many steps as necessary,' and the authors provide no original GraphCoT runs, no released code, and no demonstration that a 10-step cap does not already constrain the original method. Because the claimed advantage over prior work is computed as the difference between this anchor row and the 50-step/16-vote row, the equivalence is load-bearing; the authors must either run a faithful GraphCoT baseline with its native termination policy or re-scope their claims to improvements over their own 10-step/1-vote configuration.
  2. [Section 4.4, Tables 1-2] The text in Section 4.4 states that the reported results are 'averaged across nine domains,' but Tables 1 and 2 list only six domain columns (Academic, Amazon, DBLP, Biomedical, Goodreads, Legal). The composition of the averages is therefore not reproducible from the displayed data, and the claim that gains are systematic 'across all domains' is not supported by the tables as presented. The authors should either include the missing three GRBench domains or explicitly state that results are for six domains.
  3. [Abstract, Section 4.6] The abstract claims that hard-question accuracy improves from 15.26% to 31.44%, 'more than doubling performance,' but this specific pair of numbers does not appear in Section 4 or in any table or figure. Figure 3 reports only relative gains on medium and hard questions, without the underlying accuracy values. The authors need to add a table or explicit per-difficulty numerical results so this headline quantitative claim can be verified.
  4. [Section 4.4, Table 1] The claim that 'increasing the inference budget... systematically improves performance across all domains' is too strong given the displayed numbers. Table 1 contains non-monotonic entries, such as Legal at 25 steps/votes=8 (26.32) versus 10 steps/votes=8 (36.61), and Biomedical at 50 steps/votes=4 (15.58) versus 25 steps/votes=4 (19.02). Since no variance estimates, confidence intervals, or repeated-run statistics are reported, the paper does not currently establish that the observed improvements are statistically reliable; the authors should soften the systematic claim or provide uncertainty quantification.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.7] The text states that increasing steps from 10 to 50 led to an average F1 improvement of 6.53%, but Table 1 shows a change from 36.49 to 43.02, which is 6.53 absolute points (about 17.9% relative); please clarify whether percentages in the paper are relative or absolute throughout.
  2. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'GraphCoT. the current state-of-the-art method...' has a punctuation or formatting error; the baseline description should read as a complete sentence.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The Figure 3 caption refers to 'all six domains,' while Section 4.4 says results are averaged over nine domains; reconcile the domain count.
  4. [Appendix A.1 and A.3] Appendix A.1 uses 'Thought, Interaction with Graph, and Feedback,' whereas Appendix A.3 uses 'Thought, Action, and Observation'; aligning the terminology would avoid confusion.
  5. [References] References [19] and [20] both cite Lewis et al.'s RAG paper; these should be merged or clearly distinguished by venue.
  6. [Section 4.6] The text reports '23.27% at most' without identifying the domain; adding the domain would allow readers to verify the claim against the underlying data.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The claimed 30.3% SOTA gain over GraphCoT is computed against the paper's own 10-step/1-vote row (labeled 'equivalent to GraphCoT'), so that headline margin reduces to a self-defined baseline; the core inference-scaling trend is directly measured and not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2, Table 1 caption, and Section 4.4; headline claim in Sections 1 and 6]
    "GraphCoT with no inference scaling (equivalent to the Inference Scaled GraphRAG configuration of 10 steps and 1 vote) ... GraphCoT improves on this with 36.49, while our method reaches 47.55 under the highest inference budget."

    The GraphCoT baseline is defined by the paper as its own lowest-budget configuration (10 steps, 1 vote). The headline '30.3% improvement over previous graph traversal methods' is then the ratio 47.55 / 36.49 between the paper's own 50-step/16-vote row and that self-defined baseline row. By the paper's own labeling, the SOTA margin reduces by construction to a comparison of two of the authors' own sweep rows, not an independently run GraphCoT baseline. Appendix A.3's GraphCoT-style prompt says 'You may take as many steps as necessary to answer the question,' which is in tension with the 10-step cap used for the baseline, so the baseline value may be artificially constrained.

full rationale

The paper contains no equations, no fitted parameters, and no derived predictions; its central empirical claim—that raising the step count and vote count improves F1 and RougeL on GRBench—is directly measured in Tables 1–3 across three model backbones and is self-contained. The only self-referential element is the construction of the GraphCoT baseline: Table 1 defines GraphCoT as the paper's own 10-step/1-vote configuration, and Section 4.4 computes the '30.3% improvement over prior graph traversal methods' as the gap between the 50-step/16-vote row (47.55) and that self-defined baseline row (36.49). By the paper's own labeling, this SOTA margin is a comparison between two of its own sweep rows; additionally, the Appendix A.3 prompt says the model 'may take as many steps as necessary,' which is in tension with the 10-step cap. This is a baseline-fidelity concern that bears on the headline percentage, not a circular derivation: the internal scaling trend is an empirical measurement, not a fitted or self-referential result. No load-bearing self-citations exist; GraphCoT [15] is an external ACL-published work by different authors, and the interleaved reasoning-execution loop is adopted from it as ordinary prior-art support. Reporting inconsistencies (Section 4.4 claims averages over nine domains while only six appear in Tables 1–2, and the abstract's 15.26% to 31.44% hard-question accuracy is not traceable to any table) are correctness and reproducibility concerns, not circularity. Overall the derivation chain is empirical and self-contained, with one minor self-definitional step affecting the headline SOTA claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three assumptions beyond standard ML practice: the baseline equivalence, the sufficiency of the graph API, and the benefit of action voting. No free numerical parameters are fitted to optimize the headline result, but the choice of 10 steps/1 vote as the 'no scaling' anchor and 50 steps/16 votes as the 'best' configuration are hand-picked settings that determine the reported gains. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • base_config_steps = 10
    Step count chosen by hand to represent GraphCoT with 'no inference scaling'; the headline 30.3% improvement is computed against this anchor. Sections 4.2 and Tables 1-2.
  • base_config_votes = 1
    Vote count chosen to define no parallel scaling; the baseline label is an assumption about the prior method's configuration. Table 1 caption.
  • max_config_steps = 50
    Step count for the best reported configuration; the paper does not demonstrate convergence or optimality. Tables 1-3.
  • max_config_votes = 16
    Vote count for the best reported configuration; the 64.7% and 30.3% claims use this point. Tables 1-3.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper A 10-step, 1-vote run is a faithful proxy for the original GraphCoT baseline.
    Section 4.2 and Table 1's caption equate GraphCoT to this configuration without evidence from the original paper; the headline 30.3% improvement is measured from this anchor.
  • domain assumption GRBench questions can be answered using only the four provided graph functions.
    Section 3.1 defines RetrieveNode, NodeFeature, NeighborCheck, NodeDegree; the paper does not analyze coverage or whether harder questions need additional operations.
  • domain assumption Action-level majority voting over k samples selects actions that are at least as good as a single sample.
    Section 3.2 Parallel scaling relies on this premise; the measured gains are small (about 4% F1 on average) and negative in some domains.
  • domain assumption The aggregated average is well-defined across the set of GRBench domains.
    Section 4.4 reports averages over nine domains but only six appear in the tables, with no weighting formula; the reported means cannot be reproduced from the displayed rows.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inference Scaled GraphRAG: Improving Multi Hop Question Answering on Knowledge Graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JWSZFSHN

@misc{pith2026250619967,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inference Scaled GraphRAG: Improving Multi Hop Question Answering on Knowledge Graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JWSZFSHN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19967}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved impressive capabilities in language understanding and generation, yet they continue to underperform on knowledge-intensive reasoning tasks due to limited access to structured context and multi-hop information. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) partially mitigates this by grounding generation in retrieved context, but conventional RAG and GraphRAG methods often fail to capture relational structure across nodes in knowledge graphs. We introduce Inference-Scaled GraphRAG, a novel framework that enhances LLM-based graph reasoning by applying inference-time compute scaling. Our method combines sequential scaling with deep chain-of-thought graph traversal, and parallel scaling with majority voting over sampled trajectories within an interleaved reasoning-execution loop. Experiments on the GRBench benchmark demonstrate that our approach significantly improves multi-hop question answering performance, achieving substantial gains over both traditional GraphRAG and prior graph traversal baselines. These findings suggest that inference-time scaling is a practical and architecture-agnostic solution for structured knowledge reasoning with LLMs

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19967 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Performance of Inference Scaled GraphRAG under varying inference step counts and model backbones including Llama3.1-8B-Instruct, Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct, and Qwen3-32b. (a) F1 score increases consistently with more inference steps across all model configurations. (b) RougeL scores show a similar trend, reflecting improvements in both symbolic and semantic alignment with ground-truth answers. distributed across multipl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of Inference Scaled GraphRAG. The diagram illustrates the iterative process where a question is processed by an LLM. The LLM generates k thought-actions pairs. We perform majority voting to select the best action to interact with the knowledge graph. The response returned from the knowledge graph is fed back as context to the LLM for generation of the next thought-action pair. Generation continues until we … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance improvements across domains with maximum inference scaling (50 steps, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Le, Christopher Ré, and Azalia Mirhoseini

    Bradley Brown, Jordan Juravsky, Ryan Ehrlich, Ronald Clark, Quoc V . Le, Christopher Ré, and Azalia Mirhoseini. Large language monkeys: Scaling inference compute with repeated sampling, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21787

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwi...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    DeepSeek-AI, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, Xiaokang Zhang, Xingkai Yu, Yu Wu, Z. F. Wu, Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Zhuoshu Li, Ziyi Gao, Aixin Liu, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Bei Feng, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, Damai D...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Jill Burstein, Christy Doran, and Thamar Solorio, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, V o...

    doi:10.18653/v1 2019

  5. [5]

    A survey on in-context learning, 2024

    Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Jingyuan Ma, Rui Li, Heming Xia, Jingjing Xu, Zhiyong Wu, Tianyu Liu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Lei Li, and Zhifang Sui. A survey on in-context learning, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.00234

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization, 2025

    Darren Edge, Ha Trinh, Newman Cheng, Joshua Bradley, Alex Chao, Apurva Mody, Steven Truitt, Dasha Metropolitansky, Robert Osazuwa Ness, and Jonathan Larson. From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2404.16130

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models, 2024

    Wenqi Fan, Yujuan Ding, Liangbo Ning, Shijie Wang, Hengyun Li, Dawei Yin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Qing Li. A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06211

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey, 2024

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997

    arXiv 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ah- mad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, Archie Sravankumar, Artem Korenev, A...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Reinforced self-training (rest) for language modeling, 2023

    Caglar Gulcehre, Tom Le Paine, Srivatsan Srinivasan, Ksenia Konyushkova, Lotte Weerts, Abhishek Sharma, Aditya Siddhant, Alex Ahern, Miaosen Wang, Chenjie Gu, Wolfgang Macherey, Arnaud Doucet, Orhan Firat, and Nando de Freitas. Reinforced self-training (rest) for language mode...

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Chawla, Thomas Laurent, Yann LeCun, Xavier Bresson, and Bryan Hooi

    Xiaoxin He, Yijun Tian, Yifei Sun, Nitesh V . Chawla, Thomas Laurent, Yann LeCun, Xavier Bresson, and Bryan Hooi. G-retriever: Retrieval-augmented generation for textual graph understanding and question answering, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07630

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Rae, Oriol Vinyals, and Laurent Sifre

    Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, Tom Hennigan, Eric Noland, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Bogdan Damoc, Aurelia Guy, Simon Osin...

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Antoine Roux, Arthur Mensch, Blanche Savary, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Emma Bou Hanna, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Bour, Guillaume Lample, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Lucile Saulnier, Marie-Anne...

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Large language models on graphs: A comprehensive survey, 2024

    Bowen Jin, Gang Liu, Chi Han, Meng Jiang, Heng Ji, and Jiawei Han. Large language models on graphs: A comprehensive survey, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.02783

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Graph chain-of-thought: Augmenting large language models by reasoning on graphs

    Bowen Jin, Chulin Xie, Jiawei Zhang, Kashob Kumar Roy, Yu Zhang, Zheng Li, Ruirui Li, Xianfeng Tang, Suhang Wang, Yu Meng, and Jiawei Han. Graph chain-of-thought: Augmenting large language models by reasoning on graphs. In Findings of the Associa- tion for Computational Lingui...

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Regularized best-of-n sampling with minimum bayes risk objective for language model alignment, 2025

    Yuu Jinnai, Tetsuro Morimura, Kaito Ariu, and Kenshi Abe. Regularized best-of-n sampling with minimum bayes risk objective for language model alignment, 2025. URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/2404.01054

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Billion-scale similarity search with gpus

    Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535–547, 2019. doi: 10.1109/TBDATA.2019.2921572. 13

    2019

  10. [18]

    Miranda, Alisa Liu, Nouha Dziri, Shane Lyu, Yuling Gu, Saumya Malik, Victoria Graf, Jena D

    Nathan Lambert, Jacob Morrison, Valentina Pyatkin, Shengyi Huang, Hamish Ivison, Faeze Brahman, Lester James V . Miranda, Alisa Liu, Nouha Dziri, Shane Lyu, Yuling Gu, Saumya Malik, Victoria Graf, Jena D. Hwang, Jiangjiang Yang, Ronan Le Bras, Oyvind Tafjord, Chris Wilhelm, Lu...

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In Proceed- ings of t...

    2020

  12. [20]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Syst...

    2020

  13. [21]

    Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models

    Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, Yuhuai Wu, Behnam Neyshabur, Guy Gur-Ari, and Vedant Misra. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. ...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang

    Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03172

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    s1: Simple test-time scaling, 2025

    Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei-Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel Candès, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. s1: Simple test-time scaling, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19393

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Openai o1 system card, 2024

    OpenAI. Openai o1 system card, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.16720

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Graph retrieval-augmented generation: A survey, 2024

    Boci Peng, Yun Zhu, Yongchao Liu, Xiaohe Bo, Haizhou Shi, Chuntao Hong, Yan Zhang, and Siliang Tang. Graph retrieval-augmented generation: A survey, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2408.08921

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Scaling LLM test- time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling parameters for reasoning

    Charlie Victor Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling LLM test- time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling parameters for reasoning. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2025. URL https: //openreview.net/foru...

    2025

  19. [27]

    Multihop-RAG: Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for multi-hop queries

    Yixuan Tang and Yi Yang. Multihop-RAG: Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for multi-hop queries. In First Conference on Language Modeling , 2024. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=t4eB3zYWBK

    2024

  20. [28]

    M Towhidul Islam Tonmoy, S M Mehedi Zaman, Vinija Jain, Anku Rani, Vipula Rawte, Aman Chadha, and Amitava Das

    S. M Towhidul Islam Tonmoy, S M Mehedi Zaman, Vinija Jain, Anku Rani, Vipula Rawte, Aman Chadha, and Amitava Das. A comprehensive survey of hallucination mitigation techniques in large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.01313

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback, 2022

    Jonathan Uesato, Nate Kushman, Ramana Kumar, Francis Song, Noah Siegel, Lisa Wang, Antonia Creswell, Geoffrey Irving, and Irina Higgins. Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.14275

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023. URL https://...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Chi, Quoc V

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V . Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Sy...

    2022

  24. [32]

    InstructRAG: Instructing retrieval-augmented generation via self-synthesized rationales

    Zhepei Wei, Wei-Lin Chen, and Yu Meng. InstructRAG: Instructing retrieval-augmented generation via self-synthesized rationales. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=P1qhkp8gQT

    2025

  25. [33]

    Inference scaling laws: An empirical analysis of compute-optimal inference for LLM problem-solving

    Yangzhen Wu, Zhiqing Sun, Shanda Li, Sean Welleck, and Yiming Yang. Inference scaling laws: An empirical analysis of compute-optimal inference for LLM problem-solving. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2025. URL https: //openreview.net/fo...

    2025

  26. [34]

    Zonghan Wu, Shirui Pan, Fengwen Chen, Guodong Long, Chengqi Zhang, and Philip S. Yu. A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 32(1):4–24, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2020.2978386

    2021

  27. [35]

    The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey, 2023

    Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, Rui Zheng, Xiaoran Fan, Xiao Wang, Limao Xiong, Yuhao Zhou, Weiran Wang, Changhao Jiang, Yicheng Zou, Xiangyang Liu, Zhangyue Yin, Shihan Dou, Rongxiang Weng, W...

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Qwen3 technical report, 2025

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, Chujie Zheng, Dayiheng Liu, Fan Zhou, Fei Huang, Feng Hu, Hao Ge, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jia...

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Astuti, Bo Peng, Danfei Chen, Erik Nijkamp, and Sergey Levine. Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2023. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=A12pZ0d5tN

    2023

  30. [38]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models, 2023

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models, 2023. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2210.03629

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Language is all a graph needs

    Ruosong Ye, Caiqi Zhang, Runhui Wang, Shuyuan Xu, and Yongfeng Zhang. Language is all a graph needs. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2024, pages 1955–1973, St. Julian’s, Malta, March 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18...

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Inference scaling for long-context retrieval augmented generation, 2025

    Zhenrui Yue, Honglei Zhuang, Aijun Bai, Kai Hui, Rolf Jagerman, Hansi Zeng, Zhen Qin, Dong Wang, Xuanhui Wang, and Michael Bendersky. Inference scaling for long-context retrieval augmented generation, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.04343

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Rest-mcts*: Llm self-training via process reward guided tree search

    Dan Zhang, Sining Zhoubian, Ziniu Hu, Yisong Yue, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. Rest-mcts*: Llm self-training via process reward guided tree search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03816 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A survey of graph retrieval-augmented generation for customized large language models, 2025

    Qinggang Zhang, Shengyuan Chen, Yuanchen Bei, Zheng Yuan, Huachi Zhou, Zijin Hong, Junnan Dong, Hao Chen, Yi Chang, and Xiao Huang. A survey of graph retrieval-augmented generation for customized large language models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2501.13958. 15

    2025

  35. [43]

    A survey of large language models, 2025

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, Yifan Du, Chen Yang, Yushuo Chen, Zhipeng Chen, Jinhao Jiang, Ruiyang Ren, Yifan Li, Xinyu Tang, Zikang Liu, Peiyu Liu, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong W...

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Clr-fact: Evaluating the complex logical reasoning capability of large language models over factual knowledge, 2024

    Tianshi Zheng, Jiaxin Bai, Yicheng Wang, Tianqing Fang, Yue Guo, Yauwai Yim, and Yangqiu Song. Clr-fact: Evaluating the complex logical reasoning capability of large language models over factual knowledge, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.20564

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    feature" key. (3) NodeDegree[Node, neighbor_type], which calculates the number of

    Yuchen Zhuang, Yue Yu, Kuan Wang, Haotian Sun, and Chao Zhang. Toolqa: A dataset for llm question answering with external tools. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 36, pages 50117–50143, 2023. 16 Appendix A Prompting templates Our prompt is composed ...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.