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 Grok 4.1 Fast. Procedural Graph achieves 74.4% compared to the best baseline score of 74.3% (margin of +0.1%).

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 Grok 4.1 Fast. Procedural Graph achieves 74.4% compared to the best baseline score of 74.3% (margin of +0.1%). · 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: Grok 4.1 Fast · method: Vanilla ReAct (Yao et al., 2023b) · benchmark: HotpotQA	72.7%	—	Not assessed
model: Grok 4.1 Fast · method: MemoryBank (Zhong et al., 2024) · benchmark: HotpotQA	70.7%	—	Not assessed
model: Grok 4.1 Fast · method: RAP (Kagaya et al., 2024) · benchmark: HotpotQA	70.2%	—	Not assessed
model: Grok 4.1 Fast · method: ExpeL (Zhao et al., 2024) · benchmark: HotpotQA	73.5%	—	Not assessed
model: Grok 4.1 Fast · method: AutoGuide (Fu et al., 2024) · benchmark: HotpotQA	70%	—	Not assessed
model: Grok 4.1 Fast · method: AWM (Wang et al., 2025b) · benchmark: HotpotQA	74.3%	—	Not assessed
model: Grok 4.1 Fast · method: KnowAgent (Zhu et al., 2025) · benchmark: HotpotQA	73.1%	—	Not assessed
model: Grok 4.1 Fast · method: Procedural Graph (Ours) · benchmark: HotpotQA	74.4%	—	Not assessed

Reported and observed measurements

Assessments (0)

Runs (0)

Measurement results