Paper detail

Fine-Tuning vs. RAG for Multi-Hop Question Answering with Novel Knowledge

Multi-hop question answering is widely used to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), as it requires integrating multiple pieces of supporting knowledge to arrive at a correct answer. While prior work has explored different mechanisms for providing knowledge to LLMs, such as finetuning and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), their relative effectiveness for multi-hop question answering remains insufficiently understood, particularly when the required knowledge is temporally novel. In this paper, we systematically compare parametric and non-parametric knowledge injection methods for open-domain multi-hop question answering. We evaluate unsupervised fine-tuning (continual pretraining), supervised fine-tuning, and retrieval-augmented generation across three 7B-parameter open-source LLMs. Experiments are conducted on two benchmarks: QASC, a standard multi-hop science question answering dataset, and a newly constructed dataset of over 10,000 multi-hop questions derived from Wikipedia events in 2024, designed to test knowledge beyond the models' pretraining cutoff. Our results show that unsupervised fine-tuning provides only limited gains over base models, suggesting that continual pretraining alone is insufficient for improving multi-hop reasoning accuracy. In contrast, retrieval-augmented generation yields substantial and consistent improvements, particularly when answering questions that rely on temporally novel information. Supervised fine-tuning achieves the highest overall accuracy across models and datasets. These findings highlight fundamental differences in how knowledge injection mechanisms support multi-hop question answering and underscore the importance of retrieval-based methods when external or compositional knowledge is required.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.