Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) typically relies on a flat retrieval paradigm that maps queries directly to static, isolated text segments. This approach struggles with more complex tasks that require the conditional retrieval and dynamic synthesis of information across different levels of granularity (e.g., from broad concepts to specific evidence). To bridge this gap, we introduce NaviRAG, a novel framework that shifts from passive segment retrieval to active knowledge navigation. NaviRAG first structures the knowledge documents into a hierarchical form, preserving semantic relationships from coarse-grained topics to fine-grained details. Leveraging this reorganized knowledge records, a large language model (LLM) agent actively navigates the records, iteratively identifying information gaps and retrieving relevant content from the most appropriate granularity level. Extensive experiments on long-document QA benchmarks show that NaviRAG consistently improves both retrieval recall and end-to-end answer performance over conventional RAG baselines. Ablation studies confirm performance gains stem from our method's capacity for multi-granular evidence localization and dynamic retrieval planning. We further discuss efficiency, applicable scenario, and future directions of our method, hoping to make RAG systems more intelligent and autonomous.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Two types of complex long-chain reasoning scenarios, each illustrated with example queries, associated retrieval challenges, limitations of traditional RAG, and how NaviRAG addresses these challenges.
Figure 2: Framework of NaviRAG under a two-stage paradigm of knowledge organization and navigational retrieval. The offline stage organizes documents into a hierarchical structure through top-down semantic routing and bottom-up refusion and summarization. The online stage retrieves evidence via semantic localization and subsequent navigation within the identified semantic subtree.
Method
NarrativeQA
Loogle
LongBench v2
F1
Recall
Short
Long-Script
Long-Wikipedia
Vanilla
27.80
73.23
76.64
41.58
44.66
40.78
GraphRAG
30.17
85.34
66.46
44.85
42.48
38.83
LightRAG
28.98
86.69
67.46
37.38
36.81
34.95
HippoRAG2
27.88
74.57
86.02
41.74
44.66
40.78
NaviRAG
32.60
78.69
79.04
45.01
44.88
42.72
Table 1: Performance comparison between NaviRAG and baselines. Best results are in bold and second-best results are underlined.
LLM
NarrativeQA
Loogle
LongBench v2
F1
Recall
Short
Long-Script
Long-Wikipedia
Vanilla
Qwen3-14B
25.76
73.23
75.44
34.42
38.34
33.98
Qwen3-32B
27.05
73.23
77.64
41.58
42.48
41.75
Qwen3-30B-A3B
26.31
73.23
76.84
43.30
46.84
42.72
Llama3.3-70B
27.80
73.23
76.64
41.58
44.66
40.78
Table 2: Performance comparison between Vanilla RAG and NaviRAG across different model sizes. Numbers in parentheses indicate the absolute improvement over the corresponding Vanilla baseline.
Setting
NarrativeQA
Loogle
LongBench v2
F1
Recall
Short
Script
Wikipedia
NaviRAG
32.60
78.69
79.04
45.01
44.88
42.72
w/o reading
30.52
73.00
72.85
39.71
41.17
42.72
w/o knowledge base
27.69
59.09
77.64
40.03
43.13
40.78
Table 3: Ablation study of NaviRAG components.
Method
Script
Wikipedia
Vanilla
41.58
44.66
NaviRAG
45.01
44.88
w/ Memory
45.48
47.27
Table 4: Impact of the memory mechanism on NaviRAG performance.
Method
F1
Tokens
Time (s/query)
Vanilla
27.80
2560
1.01
HippoRAG2
27.88
2635
1.36
GraphRAG
30.17
7249
14.30
LightRAG
28.98
18896
4.27
NaviRAG
32.60
3305
3.23
Table 5: Performance–efficiency comparison of RAG methods. Time denotes average inference latency per query. Bold and underline indicate the best and second-best results among structured methods (excluding vanilla RAG).
Method
KB Construction Time (min)
HippoRAG2
40.58
LightRAG
61.93
GraphRAG
225.93
NaviRAG
99.95
NaviRAG (batch)
51.28
Table 6: Knowledge base construction time of different methods.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
NarrativeQA
Loogle
LongBench v2
Short
Script
Wikipedia
# Queries
293
501
642
459
103
# Documents
10
24
80
60
103
Avg. Doc Length (k tokens)
59.56
23.84
41.26
22.12
77.92
Appendix
Table 7: Statistics of evaluation datasets.
Hyperparameter
GraphRAG
LightRAG
Mode
Local
Local
Chunk Size (tokens)
1200
1200
Chunk Overlap (tokens)
100
100
Max Context (tokens)
8000
30000
Community Report Length
2000
–
Max Cluster Size
10
–
Appendix
Table 8: Hyperparameter settings for GraphRAG and LightRAG.
Hyperparameter
HippoRAG2
Num to Retrieve
5
Appendix
Table 9: Hyperparameter setting for HippoRAG2.
Hyperparameters
NaviRAG
Organization
Chunk Token Size
512
Overlap Rate
0.2
Num Select Titles
2
Max Content Length
1536
Max Titles Num
12
Appendix
Table 10: Hyperparameter settings for NaviRAG.
Table 11: Prompt template for selecting relevant titles from current layer (knowledge organization).
Table 12: Prompt template for generating a new node from input segment (knowledge organization).
Table 13: Prompt template for merging supplementary segment into an existing node (knowledge organization).
Table 14: Prompt template for reorganizing and fusing multiple snippets into coherent wiki-style content (knowledge organization).
Table 15: Prompt template for generating a concise summary of a node (knowledge organization).
Table 16: Prompt template for navigation-based retrieval over a hierarchical knowledge base (retrieval module).
Table 17: Prompt template for selecting relevant passages at the leaf level of the knowledge structure (retrieval module).
Vanilla
NaviRAG
NaviRAG w/ Memory
Document
Anti-Peruvian sentiment
Question
How many times has Chile adopted anti_peru policies?
Gold Answer
3 times.
Response
At least 5 times
At least 7 times
3 times
Appendix
Table 18: Case study comparing responses from different methods. NaviRAG with memory produces the correct answer.
Table 19: Navigation Trajectories of NaviRAG w/o Memory
Table 20: Navigation Trajectories of NaviRAG w/Memory
Table 21: Internal Structure of a Script Document
Table 22: Internal Structure of a Wikipedia Document
Setting
NarrativeQA
Loogle
LongBench v2
F1
Recall
Short
Long-Script
Long-Wikipedia
Default
32.60
78.69
79.04
45.01
44.88
42.72
BatchSize=100
33.54 (+0.94)
78.26 (-0.43)
76.84 (-2.2)
42.83 (-2.18)
42.70 (-2.18)
44.66 (+1.94)
Appendix
Table 23: Comparison of NaviRAG under the default setting and batch generation with batch size 100 across different datasets.
k=3
k=5
k=7
k=9
k=15
Method
F1
Tokens
F1
Tokens
F1
Tokens
F1
Tokens
F1
Tokens
Vanilla
25.06
1536
27.80
2560
29.75
3584
30.24
4608
31.28
7908
NaviRAG
30.57
2089
32.60
3305
33.75
4392
33.22
5422
34.27
8411
Appendix
Table 24: Efficiency analysis under different retrieval depths ( k ). We report F1 and the final context length (tokens).