Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems commonly suffer from **Knowledge Conflicts**, where retrieved external knowledge contradicts the inherent, parametric knowledge of large language models (LLMs). It adversely affects performance on downstream tasks such as question answering (QA). Existing approaches often attempt to mitigate conflicts by directly comparing two knowledge sources in a side-by-side manner, but this can overwhelm LLMs with extraneous or lengthy contexts, ultimately hindering their ability to identify and mitigate inconsistencies. To address this issue, we propose **Micro-Act** a framework with a hierarchical action space that automatically perceives context complexity and adaptively decomposes each knowledge source into a sequence of fine-grained comparisons. These comparisons are represented as actionable steps, enabling reasoning beyond the superficial context. Through extensive experiments on five benchmark datasets, Micro-Act consistently achieves significant increase in QA accuracy over state-of-the-art baselines across all 5 datasets and 3 conflict types, especially in temporal and semantic types where all baselines fail significantly. More importantly, Micro-Act exhibits robust performance on non-conflict questions simultaneously, highlighting its practical value in real-world RAG applications.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved the performance of multi-hop question answering (MHQA) systems. Despite the success of MHQA systems, the evaluation of MHQA is not deeply investigated. Existing evaluations mainly focus on comparing the final answers of the reasoning method and given ground-truths. We argue that the reasoning process should also be evaluated because wrong reasoning process can also lead to the correct final answers. Motivated by this, we propose a “Planner-Executor-Reasoner” (PER) architecture, which forms the core of the Plan-anchored Data Preprocessing (PER-DP) and the Plan-guided Multi-Hop QA (PER-QA).The former provides the ground-truth of intermediate reasoning steps and final answers, and the latter offers them of a reasoning method. Moreover, we design a fine-grained evaluation metric called Plan-aligned Stepwise Evaluation (PSE), which evaluates the intermediate reasoning steps from two aspects: planning and solving. Extensive experiments on ten types of questions demonstrate competitive reasoning performance, improved explainability of the MHQA system, and uncover issues such as “fortuitous reasoning continuance” and “latent reasoning suspension” in RAG-based MHQA systems. Besides, we also demonstrate the potential of our approach in data contamination scenarios.