reasoning benchmark
Factuality, Retrieval, And reasoning MEasurement Set - a unified evaluation dataset of 824 challenging multi-hop questions for testing retrieval-augmented generation systems across factuality, retrieval accuracy, and reasoning capabilities, requiring integration of 2-15 Wikipedia articles per question
Updated Aug 7, 2026
Sorted by the source-provided rank. Higher score is better according to the registry.
| 1 | MA | 87.0% | 100.0% | 2 | C | |
| 2 | DE | 73.3% | 0.0% | 2 | C |
Top published rows on the benchmark's original scale.
The top published results on this benchmark's own scale.
Definition and scoring fields from the benchmark registry.
Factuality, Retrieval, And reasoning MEasurement Set - a unified evaluation dataset of 824 challenging multi-hop questions for testing retrieval-augmented generation systems across factuality, retrieval accuracy, and reasoning capabilities, requiring integration of 2-15 Wikipedia articles per question
Scores are shown in ratio. The current registry marks this benchmark as not independently verified with evidence level B.
Source-native results are preserved. Eligibility for the overall LLMBoard score is a separate policy decision.
Common questions about FRAMES.
Kimi K2-Thinking-0905 is currently ranked first with 87.0%.
Factuality, Retrieval, And reasoning MEasurement Set - a unified evaluation dataset of 824 challenging multi-hop questions for testing retrieval-augmented generation systems across factuality, retrieval accuracy, and reasoning capabilities, requiring integration of 2-15 Wikipedia articles per question
Yes. Higher values rank better for this benchmark.
2 unique published model results are currently shown.
This benchmark is preserved as source-native evidence but is not eligible for the current overall score.