Graph-RAG systems achieve strong multi-hop question answering by indexing documents into knowledge graphs, but strong retrieval does not guarantee strong answers. Evaluating KET-RAG, a leading Graph-RAG system, on three multi-hop QA benchmarks (HotpotQA, MuSiQue, 2WikiMultiHopQA), we find that 77% to 91% of questions have the gold answer in the retrieved context, yet accuracy is only 35% to 78%, and 73% to 84% of errors are reasoning failures. We propose two augmentations: (i) SPARQL chain-of-thought prompting, which decomposes questions into triple-pattern queries aligned with the entity-relationship context, and (ii) graph-walk compression, which compresses the context by ~60% via knowledge-graph traversal with no LLM calls. SPARQL CoT improves accuracy by +2 to +14 pp; graph-walk compression adds +6 pp on average when paired with structured prompting on smaller models. Surprisingly, we show that, with question-type routing, a fully augmented budget open-weight Llama-8B model matches or exceeds the unaugmented Llama-70B baseline on all three benchmarks at ~12x lower cost. A replication on LightRAG confirms that our augmentations transfer across Graph-RAG systems.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: SPARQL CoT prompting. The model generates a SPARQL query whose triple patterns align with the retrieved context, then traces variable bindings to produce the answer in a single LLM call.
Figure 2: Graph-walk context compression. BFS from question-anchored seed entities identifies structurally connected entities, assembled into compressed context organized by hop level. No LLM calls required.
Component
Model
Cost
Embeddings
MiniLM-L6-v2 (384d)
Free
Index LLM
Llama-3.1-8B (Groq)
$0.05/M
QA (budget)
Llama-3.1-8B (Groq)
$0.05/M
QA (standard)
Llama-3.3-70B (Groq)
$0.59/M
Table 1: Model stack. The index is built once with the 8B model and reused across all QA configurations.
Dataset
Ours
KET Low
KET High
HotpotQA
90.8 (454/500)
60.2
82.6
MuSiQue
77.2 (386/500)
77.0
79.6
2WikiMHQA
81.0 (405/500)
—
—
Table 2: Context coverage (%) with budget components compared to KET-RAG Huang et al. (2025) with GPT-4o-mini + OpenAI embeddings.
All Questions
Covered Questions
Hotpot
MuSiQue
2Wiki
Hotpot (454)
MuSiQue (386)
2Wiki (405)
Method
Model
Acc
F1
EM
Acc
F1
EM
Acc
F1
EM
Acc
F1
EM
Acc
F1
EM
Acc
F1
EM
Base
8B
67.0
59.5
49.4
23.6
18.0
12.4
31.4
29.1
24.2
69.6
62.2
51.5
27.5
21.2
15.8
32.1
30.1
24.7
+GW
8B
63.6
55.9
46.0
19.4
14.6
9.0
30.4
28.1
24.8
66.3
58.3
48.0
22.6
17.0
11.4
33.1
30.8
26.9
SPARQL
8B
70.6
60.8
49.4
28.8
22.6
15.4
45.6
36.9
31.0
74.4
64.2
52.6
34.8
27.4
19.7
49.9
40.6
33.6
+GW
8B
76.6
62.2
50.6
30.6
22.9
15.8
55.8
41.1
34.8
79.5
64.9
52.9
35.1
26.4
20.0
59.5
44.5
37.5
Table 3: Results (%) on 500 paired questions per dataset. “Covered” = gold answer present in context (count in parentheses). Bold = best per column. GW = graph-walk compression. F1/EM use SQuAD normalization; 8B outputs are LLM-normalized to short answers (§ 4 ).
Model
Hotpot
MuSiQue
2Wiki
Accuracy Δ (pp)
8B
+3.6
+5.2
+14.2
70B
+2.2
+8.6
+12.2
Abstain Δ (pp)
8B
−6.4
−31.4
−24.4
70B
+0.4
−8.2
−4.2
Table 4: Effect of SPARQL CoT: accuracy Δ (pp) and abstain Δ (pp) vs. baseline, without GW.
Method
8B Acc
8B Abs
70B Acc
70B Abs
Baseline
31.4
46.0
48.8
34.8
Generic CoT
52.6
25.2
56.4
36.8
SPARQL CoT
45.6
21.6
61.0
30.6
Routing
58.4
14.2
66.4
26.8
Table 5: CoT ablation on 2WikiMHQA (without GW).
Accuracy (%)
Abstain (%)
Dataset
8B
70B
Δ
8B
70B
Δ
HotpotQA
79.8
78.0
+1.8
1.0
5.6
−4.6
MuSiQue
35.6
35.2
+0.4
6.2
16.2
−10.0
2WikiMHQA
64.8
48.8
+16.0
7.2
34.8
−27.6
Table 6: 8B with routing + GW vs. unaugmented 70B baseline on KET-RAG. Routing classifies each question, applies the preferred CoT, and falls back on abstain.
Method
Model
Hot.
Mus.
2Wi.
Avg
Base
8B
−3.4
−4.2
−1.0
−2.9
Base
70B
+1.2
+4.6
+4.8
+3.5
SPARQL
8B
+6.0
+1.8
+10.2
+6.0
SPARQL
70B
−0.6
−1.6
−1.2
−1.1
Table 7: Effect of graph-walk compression: accuracy Δ (pp) vs. non-GW config.
Config
Hotpot
MuSiQue
2Wiki
8B Baseline
84
73
80
70B + SPARQL CoT
74
64
69
Table 8: Reasoning share of total errors (%): incorrect answers where the gold answer was present in context.
HotpotQA
2WikiMHQA
MuSiQue
Model
Bri.
Comp.
Comp.
BrCmp.
Cmp.
Inf.
2h
3h
4h
8B
+3.0
+5.9
+16.6
+18.2
+10.9
+3.7
+8.7
−0.6
+4.5
70B
+2.3
+2.0
+4.9
+28.1
+12.5
+3.7
+9.4
+5.5
+11.1
Table 9: SPARQL CoT accuracy improvement (pp) over baseline, by question type. HotpotQA: bridge (398) and comparison (102). 2WikiMHQA: compositional (205), bridge_comparison (121), comparison (120), inference (54). MuSiQue: by hop depth (264/146/90).
Dataset
Category
SPARQL+8B
Base+70B
Hotpot
Bridge (398)
+4.3
+1.2
Comparison (102)
+12.8
+1.0
2Wiki
Composit. (205)
+5.8
−1.0
Br-Comp. (121)
+11.6
+17.4
Comparison (120)
+13.3
+2.5
Inference 00 (54)
+16.7
+3.7
Table 10: GW accuracy Δ (pp) by question type / hop depth. Counts in parentheses.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
All Questions
Covered Questions
Hotpot
MuSiQue
2Wiki
Hotpot (450)
MuSiQue (374)
2Wiki (417)
Method
Model
Acc
F1
EM
Acc
F1
EM
Acc
F1
EM
Acc
F1
EM
Acc
F1
EM
Acc
F1
EM
Base
8B
62.2
55.1
45.2
26.6
19.3
12.8
32.2
29.0
24.6
65.8
57.8
47.3
34.2
23.7
16.6
34.5
31.2
26.6
+GW
8B
54.4
47.8
38.4
25.4
18.1
11.8
35.2
31.9
27.6
56.0
49.1
39.1
30.7
22.0
15.2
35.7
32.2
27.6
SPARQL
8B
66.8
57.5
46.6
37.4
26.9
18.6
57.4
44.3
36.2
69.6
59.3
47.8
46.3
33.0
24.1
61.9
47.1
38.8
+GW
8B
66.2
55.2
44.4
33.6
23.5
15.8
56.4
44.6
37.8
69.3
57.0
45.6
40.1
28.1
20.3
60.2
46.6
39.8
Appendix
Table 11: LightRAG generality experiment (%) on 500 paired questions per dataset. “Covered” = gold answer present in LightRAG context (count in parentheses). Bold = best per model group. GW = graph-walk compression. F1/EM use SQuAD normalization; 8B outputs are LLM-normalized to short answers (§ 4 ).
We present S-Path-RAG, a semantic-aware shortest-path Retrieval-Augmented Generation framework designed to improve multi-hop question answering over large knowledge graphs. S-Path-RAG departs from one-shot, text-heavy retrieval by enumerating bounded-length, semantically weighted candidate paths using a hybrid weighted k-shortest, beam, and constrained random-walk strategy, learning a differentiable path scorer together with a contrastive path encoder and lightweight verifier, and injecting a compact soft mixture of selected path latents into a language model via cross-attention. The system runs inside an iterative Neural-Socratic Graph Dialogue loop in which concise diagnostic messages produced by the language model are mapped to targeted graph edits or seed expansions, enabling adaptive retrieval when the model expresses uncertainty. This combination yields a retrieval mechanism that is both token-efficient and topology-aware while preserving interpretable path-level traces for diagnostics and intervention. We validate S-Path-RAG on standard multi-hop KGQA benchmarks and through ablations and diagnostic analyses. The results demonstrate consistent improvements in answer accuracy, evidence coverage, and end-to-end efficiency compared to strong graph- and LLM-based baselines. We further analyze trade-offs between semantic weighting, verifier filtering, and iterative updates, and report practical recommendations for deployment under constrained compute and token budgets.
Rong Fu, Yemin Wang, Tianxiang Xu +5
University of Macau · Xiamen University · Peking University +3
Retrieval-augmented generation built on knowledge graphs (Graph RAG) outperforms flat passage retrieval on multi-hop question answering by leveraging graph structure. In most existing systems, however, the question only sets the seed nodes; the subsequent traversal becomes "query-blind", depending solely on the graph structure. The exception is QAFD-RAG, which implements query-aware traversal via a flow-diffusion solver with combined edge re-weighting. This architecture requires loading the full graph into Python memory and an iterative solver with a variable number of iterations complicating integration with the graph database. We propose a spreading-activation method that achieves the same query-aware traversal with a single per-step semantic gate: the step weight is the cosine similarity between the candidate entity's description and the question, and the number of iterations is fixed. The whole retrieval procedure - seed mapping, propagation, top-K selection and context assembly - is expressed as a single Cypher query executed in one round-trip to Neo4j; the graph never leaves the database. On MuSiQue our method matches QAFD-RAG by exact match (32.80 vs 33.50) and outperforms the strongest purely-structural baseline in our comparison, HippoRAG, by 5.3 EM and 3.4 F1; on 2WikiMultiHopQA HippoRAG and QAFD-RAG retain an advantage due to their phrase-node architectures. An ablation with the gate disabled confirms that the gate is the source of a simultaneous F1 gain of 3.6 to 7.4 points and a retrieval-latency reduction by a factor of 1.5 to 4.9.
Illia Makarov, Mykola Glybovets
National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy Kyiv, Ukraine
Graph-based RAG improves multi-hop question answering by organizing evidence as a knowledge graph. However, most existing RAG systems process each query in isolation and discard useful reasoning from the LLM's response after inference. As a result, later related queries need to retrieve evidence and reason from scratch. We propose LivingRAG, a Graph RAG framework with writable and reusable reasoning experience. LivingRAG adds a writable experience store to a graph-based retrieval backbone, enabling verified experiences to be reused during inference in two ways. Stored graph signals help retrieval find entities and passages that were useful in earlier related queries. Stored summaries provide a reference reasoning pattern for answer generation. We analyze online QA streams and find reusable signals from shared entities, graph neighborhoods, and question templates. Experiments on multi-hop QA benchmarks show that LivingRAG improves accuracy over strong RAG baselines and reduces completion-token use when relevant prior experience is reused.
Yuzhuo Cui, Zongye Zhang, Qingjie Liu
State Key Laboratory of Virtual Reality Technology and Systems, Beihang University, Beijing, China · Hangzhou Innovation Institute, Beihang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China