WiCER: Wiki-memory Compile, Evaluate, Refine Iterative Knowledge Compilation for LLM Wiki Systems

LLM wiki systems compile knowledge into pre-filled KV caches for efficient inference, but assume a static corpus -- an assumption that fails whenever the underlying information landscape evolves. We formalize Streaming Knowledge Compilation: given a document stream, a fixed token budget, and future queries unknown at ingestion time, maintain a compiled wiki that minimizes cumulative regret against an offline oracle with perfect foresight. The enabling insight is a materiality signal $φ_t(k,n)\in[0,1]$ that scores document importance for entity $k$ at time $t$, acting as a query-relevance surrogate for proactive pinning before queries arrive; we prove an $O(\sqrt{T\log K})$ regret bound where $\varepsilon=\mathbb{E}[|φ_t-\hatφ_t|]$ is the only domain-specific quantity. We instantiate in two domains: finance, where $φ_t$ is abnormal stock volatility predicted by frozen Llama 3.1 8B classification head (AUROC = 0.728 on 76K articles, strict temporal split; $1.49\times$ higher realized forward volatility for predicted-material articles); and Wikipedia, where $φ_t$ is the Abnormal Edit Ratio (AER), a cross-sectionally normalized edit velocity -- showing the same algorithm generalizes beyond the finance domain. End-to-end QA evaluation on 173 matched pairs (finance) and 119 (Wikipedia) reveals a pervasive LLM-as-judge confound on post-training knowledge, establishing that regret analysis -- not absolute QA scores -- is the reliable evaluation metric for compiled knowledge systems. Finance cumulative regret converges to -20.0 (-0.12/step); Wikipedia to +16.0 (+0.13/step), with the positive sign confirming that Wikipedia edit content is genuinely post-training -- richer context consistently improves scores (No Wiki 3.80 vs. Oracle 4.74) -- and eliminates this confound. The $O(\sqrt{T\log K})$ guarantee applies to any domain where knowledge gaps can be predicted from streaming signals.

LLM agents require retrieval to behave less like one-shot context fetching and more like reasoning: searching, reading, traversing, and deciding when evidence is sufficient. Yet current Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems organize external knowledge as flat chunks retrieved by embedding similarity, exposing a retrieval-as-lookup interface ill-suited to iterative reasoning agents. We propose LLM-Wiki, an agent-native retrieval system that operationalizes the Retrieval-as-Reasoning paradigm by treating external knowledge as a compilable, composable, and self-evolving structure rather than a static retrieval index. LLM-Wiki compiles documents into structured Wiki pages with bidirectional links, exposes search, read, and link-following operations through standard tool-calling interfaces, and introduces an Error Book for persistent structural and semantic self-correction. LLM-Wiki achieves state-of-the-art results on HotpotQA, MuSiQue, and 2WikiMultiHopQA, outperforming HippoRAG 2, LightRAG, and GraphRAG by 2.0-8.1 F1 points. On AuthTrace, LLM-Wiki achieves the best overall accuracy, with especially strong gains on multi-document structured queries, confirming that compilation-based retrieval generalizes beyond chain-style multi-hop reasoning.

We preregistered a comparison of two ways to help an LLM answer questions over a small research corpus: a single-round Vector RAG system and an LLM-compiled markdown wiki. Both systems answered the same 13 questions over 24 papers using the same answer-generating model, and their answers were scored by blinded LLM judges. The wiki scored much better at connecting findings across papers, but its advantage in answer organization was not strong after judge adjustment. RAG met the preregistered test for single-fact lookup questions. The clean query-side cost result went against the expected wiki advantage: under the tested setup, the wiki used far more query tokens than RAG, so it could not recover any upfront build cost through cheaper queries. Two exploratory analyses changed how we interpret the result. First, claim-level citation checking favored the wiki: its cited pages more often supported the exact claims being made, even though RAG scored better on the overall groundedness rubric. Second, a decomposition-based RAG variant recovered most of the wiki's advantage on cross-paper synthesis at lower LLM-token cost, but it did not recover the wiki advantage in claim-by-claim citation support. The main conclusion is that grounded research synthesis is not a single capability. Systems can differ in how well they organize evidence, how well their citations support each claim, and how much they cost to run. In this study, no architecture was best on all three.