Beyond RAG for Cyber Threat Intelligence: A Systematic Evaluation of Graph-Based and Agentic Retrieval
Organizations: AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Austria · TU Wien, Austria
Abstract
Cyber threat intelligence (CTI) analysts must answer complex questions over large collections of narrative security reports. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems help language models access external knowledge, but traditional vector retrieval often struggles with queries that require reasoning over relationships between entities such as threat actors, malware, and vulnerabilities. This limitation arises because relevant evidence is often distributed across multiple text fragments and documents. Knowledge graphs address this challenge by enabling structured multi-hop reasoning through explicit representations of entities and relationships. However, multiple retrieval paradigms, including graph-based, agentic, and hybrid approaches, have emerged with different assumptions and failure modes. It remains unclear how these approaches compare in realistic CTI settings and when graph grounding improves performance. We present a systematic evaluation of four RAG architectures for CTI analysis: standard vector retrieval, graph-based retrieval over a CTI knowledge graph, an agentic variant that repairs failed graph queries, and a hybrid approach combining graph queries with text retrieval. We evaluate these systems on 3,300 CTI question-answer pairs spanning factual lookups, multi-hop relational queries, analyst-style synthesis questions, and unanswerable cases. Results show that graph grounding improves performance on structured factual queries. The hybrid graph-text approach improves answer quality by up to 35 percent on multi-hop questions compared to vector RAG, while maintaining more reliable performance than graph-only systems.
Figures & tables
| Paper | Architecture focus | Relevance to this work |
| Edge et al. ( Edge et al., 2025 ) | Hierarchical GraphRAG | Hierarchical graph retrieval for summarization; motivates multi-level retrieval |
| Pan et al. ( Pan et al., 2024 ) | KG–LLM integration | Conceptual taxonomy for graph–LLM integration |
| Wu et al. ( Wu and et al., 2025 ) | Domain GraphRAG | Medical GraphRAG with domain-specific enhancements |
| Agentic Medical ( Anonymous, 2025 ) | Agentic GraphRAG | Self-correcting agentic refinement for structured retrieval |
| Papageorgiou et al. ( Papageorgiou et al., 2025 ) | Hybrid GraphRAG | Hybrid multi-agent GraphRAG; explainability benefits |
| Liang et al. ( Liang et al., 2025 ) | Robustness analysis | Security evaluation of GraphRAG under poisoning attacks |
| Metric | Value |
| Question Diversity | |
| Total questions (per run) | 66 |
| Unique 4-word prefixes | 398/522 (76.1%) |
| Answer Conciseness (factoid categories only) | |
| Categories included | simple, single/multi-hop, unans. |
| Answers 12 words | 99.4% |
| System | Mean vs RAG | 95% Bootstrap CI | Median | Cohen’s |
| GRAG | ||||
| AGRAG | ||||
| HRAG |
| System | Mean vs RAG | 95% Bootstrap CI | Median | Cohen’s |
| GRAG | ||||
| AGRAG | ||||
| HRAG |
| Category | System | Mean vs RAG | 95% CI | Median | Cohen’s |
| guided | AGRAG | ||||
| guided | GRAG | ||||
| guided | HRAG | ||||
| multi_hop | AGRAG | ||||
| multi_hop | GRAG | ||||
| multi_hop | HRAG |
| Category | System | Mean vs RAG | 95% CI | Median | Cohen’s |
| guided | AGRAG | ||||
| guided | GRAG | ||||
| guided | HRAG | ||||
| multi_hop | AGRAG | ||||
| multi_hop | GRAG | ||||
| multi_hop | HRAG |
| Model | GRAG Mean | AGRAG GRAG | HRAG GRAG | GRAG Collapse Rate |
| Kimi K2 Thinking | [41.40, 43.65] | [0.46, 1.69] | [1.87, 3.42] | |
| Mixtral 8x7B | [28.52, 31.25] | [3.62, 5.12] | [8.33, 10.86] | |
| Mistral Small 24B | [29.74, 32.55] | [2.88, 4.42] | [6.59, 9.12] | |
| GPT-4.1-mini | [35.36, 37.63] | [1.28, 2.30] | [3.01, 4.77] | |
| GPT-5.2 | [31.75, 34.34] | [0.96, 2.32] | [8.99, 12.35] |
| Category | Collapsed / Total | Collapse Rate |
| Unanswerable | 50 / 50 | 100.0% |
| Guided | 8 / 160 | 5.0% |
| Multi-hop | 7 / 150 | 4.7% |
| Single-hop | 1 / 150 | 0.7% |
| Simple | 0 / 150 | 0.0% |
| Model | GRAG Mean | AGRAG GRAG | HRAG GRAG | HRAG RAG |
| Kimi K2 Thinking | [0.38, 0.44] | [0.03, 0.09] | [0.08, 0.16] | [0.14, 0.22] |
| Mixtral 8x7B | [0.16, 0.22] | [0.06, 0.12] | [0.17, 0.25] | [0.21, 0.31] |
| Mistral Small 24B | [0.19, 0.25] | [0.05, 0.11] | [0.14, 0.22] | [0.18, 0.28] |
| GPT-4.1-mini | [0.26, 0.32] | [0.03, 0.07] | [0.06, 0.12] | [0.11, 0.17] |
| GPT-5.2 | [0.28, 0.34] | [0.02, 0.06] | [0.18, 0.28] | [0.22, 0.34] |
| Model | System | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 | R7 | R8 | R9 | R10 | Mean | Std |
| GPT-5.2 | AGRAG | 6.87 | 10.12 | 9.80 | 9.08 | 12.69 | 10.17 | 10.51 | 9.71 | 7.40 | 8.84 | 9.52 | 1.55 |
| GRAG | 67.76 | 137.53 | 143.92 | 66.08 | 178.01 | 150.08 | 100.11 | 106.59 | 179.69 | 145.49 | 127.53 | 38.74 | |
| HRAG | 37.05 | 54.91 | 43.15 | 42.12 | 52.77 | 46.89 | 53.14 | 41.84 | 47.37 | 50.09 | 46.93 | 5.54 | |
| RAG | 1.27 | 1.30 | 1.22 | 1.38 | 1.50 | 1.25 | 1.26 | 1.23 | 1.34 | 1.41 | 1.32 | 0.08 | |
| Mixtral | AGRAG | 5.90 | 5.21 | 6.83 | 6.68 | 6.01 | 6.98 | 6.37 | 8.47 | 7.79 | 5.18 | 6.54 | 1.00 |
| GRAG | 26.49 | 23.94 | 23.97 | 7.35 | 15.01 | 25.30 | 15.75 | 10.39 | 1.15 | 24.13 | 17.35 | 8.36 |
| System | Mean Runtime (s) | Std (s) | Cost vs RAG | Variance | Trade-off Summary |
| RAG | Low | Fast but weakest performance on complex CTI queries | |||
| AGRAG | Low–Mod. | Best balance: large quality gains with stable overhead | |||
| HRAG | Moderate | Maximum robustness at higher but predictable cost | |||
| GRAG | High | Unfavorable: high cost and instability |
| Model | System | Simple | Single-hop | Multi-hop | Guided | Unanswerable |
| GPT-5.2 | RAG | $0.007 | $0.008 | $0.011 | $0.010 | $0.008 |
| GRAG | $0.021 | $0.028 | $0.042 | $0.036 | $0.025 | |
| AGRAG | $0.025 | $0.031 | $0.045 | $0.039 | $0.029 | |
| HRAG | $0.039 | $0.050 | $0.074 | $0.065 | $0.046 | |
| GPT-4.1-mini | RAG | $0.001 | $0.001 | $0.001 | $0.001 | $0.001 |
| GRAG | $0.002 | $0.002 | $0.002 | $0.002 | $0.002 |
| Category | RAG | GRAG | AGRAG | HRAG |
| Simple | 13.7% | 6.5% | 9.1% | 3.3% |
| Single-hop | 13.2% | 15.4% | 6.3% | 1.9% |
| Multi-hop | 24.1% | 16.3% | 10.9% | 7.0% |
| Guided | 12.5% | 26.5% | 15.9% | 8.7% |
| Unanswerable | 9.2% | 44.9% | 10.9% | 14.5% |
| Overall (std of run means) | 1.76 | 2.14 | 1.25 | 0.76 |
| Question | Which CVE was exploited in the APT37 Internet Explorer incident? |
| Gold | CVE-2022-41128 |
| GRAG (736.4s) | [Empty response after 12+ minutes] |
| Failure | Generated a Cypher query with an incorrect relationship name. Subsequent retry attempts continued searching for a schema pattern that does not exist, exhausting 25 correction iterations. |
| AGRAG (4.9s) | “CVE-2022-41128” ✓ |
| Mechanism | Critique loop identified relationship schema mismatch in the first iteration and regenerated a valid query. |
| Question | What CVSS score is recorded for CVE-2024-21338? |
| Gold | [Information not available in reports] |
| RAG (1.2s) | “The CVSS score recorded for CVE-2024-21338 is 9.1” |
| Safety failure | Confidently hallucinated a specific numerical value that is not present in the source documents. |
| GRAG (520.4s) | [Empty response after 8.7-minute timeout] |
| Partial success | Did not produce an answer, but only after prolonged latency while searching for a non-existent CVE property in the graph. |
| HRAG (15.3s) | “I don’t know” ✓ |
| Attack Strategy | RAG | GRAG | AGRAG | HRAG |
| Single-category strategies | ||||
| A1: Schema evasion (guided) | 20.6% | 82.5% | 18.1% | 3.1% |
| A2: Unanswerable probing | 6.0% | 46.0% | 4.0% | 20.0% |
| A3: Multi-hop stress | 47.3% | 16.7% | 18.7% | 12.0% |
| A4: Simple fact (control) | 52.0% | 11.3% | 12.0% | 6.7% |
| Compound strategies | ||||
| Failure Mode | RAG | GRAG | AGRAG | HRAG |
| Correct ( 40) | 41.5% | 61.1% | 74.2% | 83.2% |
| Partial (10–40) | 31.7% | 12.3% | 14.1% | 12.0% |
| Near-zero ( 10) | 26.8% | 26.7% | 11.7% | 4.8% |
| Hallucination | 45.6% | 28.2% | 9.7% | 11.7% |
| Full collapse | 41.1% | 33.0% | 15.8% | 8.8% |
| Feature | RAG | GRAG | AGRAG | HRAG |
| Question length (words) | 0.19 | 0.58 | 0.09 | 0.07 |
| Multi-entity (and/or/all) | 0.17 | 0.52 | 0.05 | 0.09 |
| Gold answer length (words) | 0.16 | 0.54 | 0.05 | 0.07 |
| Contains “which” | 0.15 | 0.22 | 0.04 | 0.17 |
| Contains “how many” | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.17 |
| Has temporal reference | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
| System | Primary Vulnerability | Failure Mode | Best Attack | Mitigation |
| RAG | Simple fact lookup | Hallucination (45.6%) | 52.0% | Improve retrieval precision |
| GRAG | Schema evasion | Full collapse (33.0%) | 82.5% | Bounded timeout + fallback |
| AGRAG | Aggregate queries | Partial failure (14.1%) | 26.4% | Aggregate query templates |
| HRAG | Unanswerable probing | Low (8.8% collapse) | 22.2% | Explicit abstention logic |
| System | Strengths | Weaknesses | Opportunities | Threats |
| RAG | Fast and low-cost retrieval; robust to schema gaps; stable runtime behavior. | High hallucination rates; weak multi-hop reasoning; sensitive to top- retrieval failures. | Improved reranking or hybrid retrieval could enhance factual recall. | Vulnerable to simple fact queries and overconfident answers for missing information. |
| GRAG | Explicit relational reasoning over CTI entities; strong factual lookup when Cypher queries succeed. | Highly sensitive to text-to-Cypher errors; latency instability due to retry loops. | Improved text-to-query models and bounded correction strategies could stabilize performance. | Schema evasion attacks and catastrophic collapse on unanswerable queries. |
| AGRAG | Agentic critique improves Cypher reliability; large accuracy gains over classical RAG; reduces query failures. | Higher latency than RAG; dependent on graph schema coverage. | Advanced agentic planning and better query validation could further improve robustness. | Aggregate queries and schema gaps remain challenging. |
| HRAG | Best overall robustness; combines graph reasoning with semantic retrieval; lowest hallucination rates. | Higher computational cost and system complexity. | Adaptive routing or ensemble strategies could reduce cost while preserving robustness. | Incorrect pipeline balancing or infrastructure constraints may limit deployment. |
Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation connects language models to knowledge graphs to retrieve relational evidence for grounded, multi-hop answers.
See all 232 papers