FondueQA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Parametric Compensation in Multi-Hop QA

However, studying this capability on established multi-hop benchmarks may be complicated by benchmark contamination, as many of these benchmarks have been publicly available long enough to plausibly appear in modern pretraining corpora. It comes from a paper posted to arXiv on 9 November 2026. Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable performance based on parametric knowledge, i.e., their ability to recall facts and associations internalized in a model's weights. As a result, correct answers under missing evidence may reflect either general parametric knowledge or memorization of benchmark-specific instances. To study how models use internal knowledge when retrieval evidence is incomplete, we introduce FondueQA, in which every required multi-hop fact is uniquely localized to a designated evidence document. This enables controlled document-level evidence ablations to study parametric compensation under incomplete retrieval. Our empirical evaluation reveals that parametric compensation strongly depends on both entity popularity and the structural role of missing evidence. Generally, models compensate more successfully for facts involving popular entities. On FondueQA, we show that bridging evidence can be more useful than the answer-bearing document itself. Moreover, models may recall a missing fact in isolation but fail to use it under partial evidence, particularly when the context contains plausible competing entities, which can reduce Exact Match by up to 15 percentage points.

Why it counts

However, studying this capability on established multi-hop benchmarks may be complicated by benchmark contamination, as many of these benchmarks have been publicly available long enough to plausibly appear in modern pretraining corpora. As a result, correct answers under missing evidence may reflect either general parametric knowledge or memorization of benchmark-specific instances.

Sources

Primary source: primary source

What is not known

This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.