Graph-based retrieval-augmented generation (GraphRAG) has recently emerged as a powerful paradigm for knowledge-intensive question answering, especially for tasks that require structured evidence organization and multi-hop reasoning. However, existing GraphRAG systems are typically built in a one-size-fits-all manner, relying on a fixed retrieval framework and a single, often large and costly, generator LLM for all queries. This static design limits their ability to adapt to the complexity of varying questions and often incurs unnecessary computational cost. To fill in the gap, we propose GraphRAG-Router, a cost-efficient framework that adopts a hierarchical routing strategy to coordinate heterogeneous GraphRAGs and generator LLMs. Specifically, GraphRAG-Router is first warmed up through supervised fine-tuning and then optimized with a two-stage reinforcement learning procedure, whose second stage introduces a curriculum cost-aware reward to encourage difficulty-aware and economical generator allocation. Extensive experiments on six general-domain and multi-hop QA benchmarks show that GraphRAG-Router consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, reducing the overuse of large LLMs by nearly 30% while maintaining strong generalization capability.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Query-dependent heterogeneity in GraphRAGs and generator LLMs.
Figure 2: Overview of the GraphRAG-Router framework. GraphRAG-Router utilizes a hierarchical routing strategy. Initialized with cold-start SFT, it adopts a two-stage RL training paradigm. Stage 1 helps the model learn effective routing behavior, while Stage 2 further optimizes the trade-off between performance and cost.
System
Methods
General QA
Multi-Hop QA
NQ †
PopQA ⋆
TriviaQA ⋆
HotpotQA †
2Wiki ⋆
Musique ⋆
Avg.
Basic LLM
Direct Infer ♠
0.107
0.117
0.308
0.269
0.295
0.118
0.202
CoT ♠
0.286
0.327
0.552
0.313
0.293
0.165
0.323
RAG-Based
Vanilla RAG
0.294
0.242
0.557
0.326
0.348
0.186
0.326
HippoRAG2
0.353
0.266
0.601
0.395
0.374
0.263
0.375
LinearRAG
0.302
0.269
0.608
0.385
0.435
0.238
0.373
Table 1: Overall Exact Match (EM) on six QA datasets. ♠ denotes the best result among different scale of LLMs. † denotes the in-domain dataset, and ⋆ denotes the cross-domain dataset. Bold and underline indicate the best and best baseline results, respectively.
Model
Dataset
NQ
HotpotQA
2Wiki
Router-R1
0.386
0.368
0.456
Router-R1 ∗
0.390
0.377
0.458
GraphRAG-Router
0.426
0.461
0.523
GraphRAG-Router ∗
0.439
0.458
0.550
Table 2: Results of the generalization capability of GraphRAG-Router.
Figure 3: Comparison of routing behavior and downstream performance.
Strategy
Dataset
NQ
HotpotQA
2Wiki
One-time
0.398
0.433
0.479
LLM-First
0.415
0.446
0.518
GraphRAG-First
0.426
0.461
0.523
Table 3: EM of different routing strategies.
Method
NQ
HotpotQA
Valid call
w/o SFT
0.185
0.207
0.35
w/ SFT
0.426
0.461
1.29
Table 4: Ablation study of SFT. Valid call indicates the average valid tool call for both datasets.
SFT
Stage1
Stage2
Dataset
NQ
HotpotQA
✓
✗
✗
0.237
0.245
✓
✓
✗
0.419
0.448
✓
✓
✓
0.426
0.461
Table 5: Ablation study on training strategies of GraphRAG-Router.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Task
Knowledge Source
#Train
#Dev
#Test
NQ
General QA
Wiki
79,168
8,757
3,610
PopQA
General QA
Wiki
-
-
14,267
TriviaQA
General QA
Wiki & Web
78,785
8,837
11,313
HotpotQA
Multi-hop QA
Wiki
90,447
7,405
-
Musique
Multi-hop QA
Wiki
19,938
2,417
-
2WikiMultiHopQA
Multi-hop QA
Wiki
15,000
12,576
-
Appendix
Table 6: Dataset Statistics
Learning Rate
Batch Size
Epochs
Weight Decay
Optimizer
Lr Scheduler
BF16
2e-5
4
2
0.01
Adam
Cosine
True
Appendix
Table 7: Hyperparameter setting for SFT
Hyperparameter
Value
Hyperparameter
Value
Learning Rate
1e-6
Mini-batch Size
32
Train Batch Size
64
Micro-batch Size
8
Rollout Group size
5
Max Training Steps
80
KL coefficient
0.001
Warm Up Ratio
0
Max turns
4
Max Sequence Length
4096
Max Response Length
1024
Max Length for LLM Response
600
Appendix
Table 8: Hyperparameter settings for stage 1
Hyperparameter
Value
Hyperparameter
Value
Learning Rate
1e-6
Mini-batch Size
32
Train Batch Size
64
Micro-batch Size
8
Rollout Group size
5
Max Training Steps
40
KL coefficient
0.001
Warm Up Ratio
0
Max turns
4
Max Sequence Length
4096
Max Response Length
1024
Max Length for LLM Response
600
Appendix
Table 9: Hyperparameter settings for stage 2
System
Methods
General QA
Multi-Hop QA
NQ †
PopQA ⋆
TriviaQA ⋆
HotpotQA †
2Wiki ⋆
Musique ⋆
Avg.
Basic LLM
Direct Infer ♠
0.165
0.162
0.347
0.361
0.347
0.135
0.253
CoT ♠
0.399
0.316
0.618
0.436
0.344
0.243
0.393
RAG-Based
Vanilla RAG
0.401
0.275
0.623
0.445
0.376
0.257
0.396
HippoRAG2
0.465
0.329
0.668
0.501
0.428
0.416
0.468
LinearRAG
0.436
0.334
0.661
0.487
0.469
0.403
0.465
Appendix
Table 10: Overall F-1 on six QA datasets. ♠ denotes the best result among different scale of LLMs. † denotes the in-domain dataset, and ⋆ denotes the cross-domain dataset. Bold and underline indicate the best and best baseline results, respectively.
Figure 4: Reward curve
Method
NQ
HotpotQA
w/o curriculum
0.391
0.406
w/ curriculum
0.426
0.461
Appendix
Table 11: Ablation study of curriculum cost-aware reward.
Figure 5: Routing statistics of both reward formulation.
Method
NQ
HotpotQA
GraphRAG-only
0.393
0.408
RAPTOR-only
0.376
0.417
LinearRAG-only
0.398
0.433
HyperGraphRAG-only
0.368
0.401
HippoRAG2-only
0.401
0.442
ALL
0.426
0.461
Appendix
Table 12: Ablation study of GraphRAG routing pool.
Method
NQ
HotpotQA
Mix
0.405
0.413
Two-stage
0.426
0.461
Appendix
Table 13: Ablation study of different RL procedure.
Figure 6: Routing statistics of both RL procedure.