Performance comparison of Procedural Graph against 7 baselines (Vanilla ReAct, MemoryBank, RAP, ExpeL, AutoGuide, AWM, KnowAgent) on HotpotQA (multi-hop open-domain QA (1000 test items, LLM judged binary accuracy)) using Gemini 3.1 Pro. Procedural Graph achieves 87.3% compared to the best baseline score of 86.0% (margin of +1.3%).

Performance comparison of Procedural Graph against 7 baselines (Vanilla ReAct, MemoryBank, RAP, ExpeL, AutoGuide, AWM, KnowAgent) on HotpotQA (multi-hop open-domain QA (1000 test items, LLM judged binary accuracy)) using Gemini 3.1 Pro. Procedural Graph achieves 87.3% compared to the best baseline score of 86.0% (margin of +1.3%). · CiteArk

Measurement results

0/8 assessed

0 supported0 disputed or conflicting8 not assessed

The complete result group stays with its claim. Assessed rows come first; their judgments do not replace the whole-claim conclusion. Expand a row for conditions, sources, and evidence history.

Each row is a measurement with its reported value, latest available observation, and cumulative evidence state.
Metric and conditions	Reported	Latest observation	Evidence judgment
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: Vanilla ReAct (Yao et al., 2023b) · benchmark: HotpotQA	85.9%	—	Not assessed
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: MemoryBank (Zhong et al., 2024) · benchmark: HotpotQA	85.1%	—	Not assessed
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: RAP (Kagaya et al., 2024) · benchmark: HotpotQA	83.6%	—	Not assessed
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: ExpeL (Zhao et al., 2024) · benchmark: HotpotQA	86%	—	Not assessed
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: AutoGuide (Fu et al., 2024) · benchmark: HotpotQA	85.8%	—	Not assessed
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: AWM (Wang et al., 2025b) · benchmark: HotpotQA	85.1%	—	Not assessed
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: KnowAgent (Zhu et al., 2025) · benchmark: HotpotQA	85%	—	Not assessed
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: Procedural Graph (Ours) · benchmark: HotpotQA	87.3%	—	Not assessed

Reported and observed measurements

Assessments (0)

Runs (0)

Measurement results