Knowledge Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (KG-RAG) is an increasingly explored approach for combining the reasoning capabilities of large language models with the structured evidence of knowledge graphs. However, current evaluation practices fall short: existing benchmarks often include questions that can be directly answered using existing triples in KG, making it unclear whether models perform reasoning or simply retrieve answers directly. Moreover, inconsistent evaluation metrics and lenient answer matching criteria further obscure meaningful comparisons. In this work, we introduce a general method for constructing benchmarks and present BRINK (Benchmark for Reasoning under Incomplete Knowledge) to systematically assess KG-RAG methods under knowledge incompleteness. Our empirical results show that current KG-RAG methods have limited reasoning ability under missing knowledge, often rely on internal memorization, and exhibit varying degrees of generalization depending on their design.

Structured fact verification benchmarks like AVeriTeC decompose claims into QA pairs to support fine-grained reasoning. However, current systems generate QA pairs independently for each evidence sentence, leading to redundancy, drift, and noise. We introduce a modular LLM-based QA consolidation module that jointly filters, clusters, and rewrites QA pairs at the claim level. Experiments show that this method improves evidence quality and veracity prediction accuracy. Our analysis also highlights the impact of model scale and alignment on downstream performance.