Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has shown great potential for improving multi-level reasoning and structured evidence aggregation. However, existing graph-based RAG frameworks heavily rely on exploiting large language models (LLMs) during indexing and querying, leading to high token consumption, computational cost and latency overhead. In this paper, we propose LiteSemRAG, a lightweight, fully LLM-free, semantic-aware graph retrieval framework. LiteSemRAG constructs a heterogeneous semantic graph by exploiting contextual token-level embeddings, explicitly separating surface lexical representations from context-dependent semantic meanings. To robustly model polysemy, we introduce a dynamic semantic node construction mechanism with chunk-level context aggregation and adaptive anomaly handling. At query stage, LiteSemRAG performs a two-step semantic-aware retrieval process that integrates co-occurrence graph weighting with an isolated semantic recovery mechanism, enabling balanced structural reasoning and semantic coverage. We evaluate LiteSemRAG on three benchmark datasets and experimental results show that LiteSemRAG achieves the best mean reciprocal rank (MRR@10) across all datasets and competitive or superior recall rate (Recall@10) compared to state-of-the-art LLM-based graph RAG systems. Meanwhile, LiteSemRAG consumes zero LLM tokens and achieves substantial efficiency improvements in both indexing and querying due to the elimination of LLM usage. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of LiteSemRAG, indicating that a strong semantic-aware graph retrieval framework can be achieved without relying on LLM-based approaches.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the two-step semantic-aware retrieval process
Figure 2: Example of the multi-layer heterogeneous semantic graph index
Figure 3: Embedding distribution of strong contextual information (left), weak contextual information (middle), and after aggregation (right)
Model
HotpotQA
SciFact
Fever
Recall@10
MRR@10
Recall@10
MRR@10
Recall@10
MRR@10
GraphRAG (GPT)
55.9%
N/A
87.4%
N/A
45.8%
N/A
GraphRAG (LLaMA)
ETL
N/A
ETL
N/A
ETL
N/A
LightRAG (GPT)
71.5%
0.419
95.2%
0.427
84.6%
0.511
LightRAG (LLaMA)
69.3%
0.359
93.5%
0.361
86.2%
0.422
LiteSemRAG
73.5%
0.694
92.3%
0.692
88.3%
0.806
Table 1: Retrieval results on three datasets
HotpotQA
SciFact
Fever
Method
AIT
AQT
AIT
AQT
AIT
AQT
GraphRAG (GPT)
3.55s
29.8s
4.35s
48.76s
3.08s
30.66s
GraphRAG (LLaMA)
ETL
ETL
ETL
ETL
ETL
ETL
LightRAG (GPT)
7.98s
0.58s
10.31s
1.57s
7.71s
1.45s
LightRAG (LLaMA)
8.06s
1.72s
10.39s
1.33s
8.12s
1.13s
LiteSemRAG
0.24s
0.11s
0.69s
0.13s
0.47s
0.09s
Table 2: Indexing and query time efficiency comparison across datasets
HotpotQA
SciFact
Fever
Method
ITC
QTC
ITC
QTC
ITC
QTC
GraphRAG (GPT)
8.07K
10.85K
9.92K
11.24K
7.11K
4.06K
GraphRAG (LLaMA)
ETL
ETL
ETL
ETL
ETL
ETL
LightRAG (GPT)
7.30K
0.43K
9.32K
0.59K
8.58K
0.44K
LightRAG (LLaMA)
8.17K
0.47K
8.85K
0.56K
8.23K
0.45K
LiteSemRAG
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 3: LLM token consumption comparison across datasets
Method
HotpotQA
SciFact
Fever
R@10
M@10
AQT
R@10
M@10
AQT
R@10
M@10
AQT
Broad search and reranking
32.5%
0.197
2.85s
14.9%
0.056
2.97s
46.7%
0.251
3.24s
Two-step semantic-aware
73.5%
0.694
0.24s
92.3%
0.692
0.69s
88.3%
0.806
0.47s
Table 4: Ablation study on two-step semantic-aware retrieval