aiqbench analysis
HopRefusalBench introduces a critical benchmark that exposes how search-augmented agents fail to halt correctly when faced with fundamentally unanswerable multi-hop queries, revealing that current models often hallucinate or exhaust their budget rather than refusing appropriately. The study highlights significant reliability gaps across ten frontier models, showing that even the best-performing systems struggle to distinguish between valid reasoning paths and dead ends in complex retrieval tasks. This work provides essential metrics for evaluating agent safety and robustness specifically within knowledge-intensive search environments where intermediate steps can lead to catastrophic failure modes.
HopRefusalBench: Diagnosing Refusal Failures in Search-Augmented Agents for Multi-Hop Reasoning
arXiv:2608.01358v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.
Abstract: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.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2608.01358 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.01358v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.01358 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 331 words
Related coverage
Performance Profiling on AMD GPUs – Part 5: Profiling-Driven Kernel Optimization with an AI Code-Assist Tool
AMD · Jul 16, 2026
Agentic AutoRAG: RAG Pipeline Optimization through Reasoning-Driven Agents
arXiv · Oct 7, 2026

AgentOps: Operationalize agentic AI at scale with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · Jun 1, 2026

Building trust in AI agents: A production-ready evaluation framework with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · Oct 16, 2026