PRISM: Agentic Retrieval with LLMs for Multi-Hop Question Answering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retrieval plays a central role in multi-hop question answering (QA), where answering complex questions requires gathering multiple pieces of evidence. We propose PRISM, an agentic retrieval framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) in a structured loop to retrieve relevant evidence with high precision and recall. PRISM decomposes retrieval into three specialized agents: a Question Analyzer that breaks complex queries into sub-questions, a Selector that identifies the most relevant context for each sub-question (focusing on precision), and an Adder that brings in any missing evidence (focusing on recall). The iterative interaction between the Selector and Adder produces a compact yet comprehensive evidence set, avoiding both brittle error propagation and noisy context accumulation. It achieves higher retrieval accuracy while filtering out distracting content, enabling downstream QA models to surpass full-context answer accuracy while relying on significantly less irrelevant information. Experiments on four challenging multi-hop QA benchmarks, including HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA, MuSiQue, and MultiHopRAG, demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms strong baselines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".