Calibrated Fusion for Heterogeneous Graph-Vector Retrieval in Multi-Hop QA

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.

Multi-hop question answering requires aggregating information from multiple documents, a critical capability for knowledge-intensive applications. A fundamental challenge lies in efficiently identifying the minimal relevant document set from retrieved candidates while maintaining high recall. We present an efficient dual-view cascaded reranking framework for multi-hop document reranking. Operating as a lightweight post-retrieval stage over E5-base-v2 candidates, our architecture comprises: (1) a Local Scorer employing stacked cross-attention for fine-grained query-document relevance; and (2) a Global Scorer modeling inter-document dependencies via Transformer-based context aggregation. These views are dynamically fused through an Adaptive Gate conditioned on query semantics. Under the fixed candidate set reranking setting with offline cached embeddings, our model achieves competitive results, particularly outstanding on MuSiQue with 99.4% Top-4 Recall and 97.8% Full Hit accuracy at 4.0 ms latency (249 QPS). It substantially outperforms 600M-parameter cross-encoders (BGE-Large: 92.0% Recall, Jina-v3: 90.1% Recall) while maintaining 5 to 6 times lower latency. Ablation studies validate that both Local and Global views contribute substantially to multi-hop performance.

An advanced retrieval-augmented generation pipeline is typically assembled from three or four independently operated systems: an approximate nearest-neighbour index, a full-text search engine, a graph database, and a relational document store. Each contributes its own deployment surface, configuration model, and failure modes, and the integration logic that binds them is written anew in every project. In this work, we present Quanta, an open-source Python library, which unifies dense vector search over 4-bit quantised embeddings, BM25 full-text retrieval, and knowledge-graph traversal behind a single retrieval API. Quanta makes two design commitments, which distinguish it from existing hybrid retrieval stacks. First, signals are combined by weighted reciprocal rank fusion rather than by normalising heterogeneous scores onto a shared range, which we argue is ill-posed because such normalisations are query-dependent. Second, the graph is a candidate expander and not a relevance scorer: traversal widens the candidate pool, and the newly admitted documents are re-scored by the dense indexes under an identifier allowlist, so structural adjacency determines what is considered while content evidence determines how it ranks.