Why Neighborhoods Matter: Traversal Context and Provenance in Agentic GraphRAG

Reported verdicts on GraphRAG versus vector RAG disagree, and the evidence is typically tied to a single corpus, embedder, and judge -- and, we show, to where citation quality is measured. We present a triple-robustness analysis that holds a five-pipeline architecture matrix fixed and varies embedder (local e5-small vs. Azure text-embedding-3-small), corpus (DO-178C typed-edge requirements vs. Wikipedia paragraph chains via MuSiQue), and judge (paired GPT-5.4 x GPT-4.1 on both corpora), over 2x4,440 main-matrix runs, 600 cross-corpus runs, and over 5,000 faithfulness judgments. (C2a) GraphRAG's graph walk floods the context window at precision 0.12-0.23, but the synthesizer cites selectively at precision 0.48-0.65; scoring the retrieved set as the attribution set inverts the architecture ranking, which reconciles part of the disagreement in prior reports. (C1) Answer-level citation winners are corpus- and stratum-conditional but embedder-robust: GraphRAG ties vanilla on short-hop DO-178C queries and wins every MuSiQue stratum, while agentic pipelines lead only on 3+-hop requirements queries. (C2b) Faithfulness is corpus-conditional: on DO-178C it declines with hop distance (trend p<0.05 in three of four judge x embedder combinations); on Wikipedia chains neither judge shows a collapse. (C3) Single-judge LLM faithfulness is fragile to retrieval state: GPT-5.4's self-kappa across embedders is 0.137 (41% verdict change) against a same-day test-retest floor of 0.76, and re-judging frozen inputs eleven weeks later gives kappa <= 0.14 for both judges. A learned router on dense embeddings alone reaches macro-F1 0.86 on hop classification (C4). We argue that RAG architecture claims should be tested at this level of robustness -- including robustness to the citation-measurement point -- before they are trusted.

Multi-hop question answering in retrieval-augmented gener?ation (RAG) often benefits from retrieving beyond the few candidates that will finally be read: narrow retrieval can miss an indispensable hop, while expanded retrieval introduces topical distractors. This challenge is not tied to a particu?lar knowledge-base format. Candidate pools may come from standalone retrievers, standard RAG backends, or graph-based retrieval pipelines. What is needed is a query-aware selection layer that can use relational structure to filter candidates be?fore generation. PAGE-RAG addresses this setting by using a graph as a temporary selection structure, rather than assum?ing a graph-structured knowledge base. It builds a query-local graph over retrieved candidates, records why candidates are connected, and treats each connection as a support hypothe?sis rather than support itself. We identify the resulting failure mode as a connectivity-support gap: connected candidates do not necessarily support the answer. We propose PAGE-RAG, a Provenance-Aware Graph Evidence promotion method that scores candidate paths with relevance, source-tracing meta?data, specificity, hubness, noise, and coherence signals, and applies minimal sufficient selection to promote supporting facts into a compact reader context. PAGE-RAG can serve as a complete retrieval-to-reading pipeline, and the same promo?tion stage can be inserted after existing retrieval or RAG sys?tems without replacing their upstream retrieval logic. Across three multi-hop QA benchmarks under the same final bud?get, PAGE-RAG improves support F1 and answer F1 by 10.4 and 3.3 points on a weighted average over a strong retriever. As a plug-in, PAGE-RAG further improves all reported RAG backends, including reasoning-oriented, compression-based, graph-based, and document/chunk-level systems.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve access to complex information; however, retrieving evidence alone does not ensure that answers are grounded, citation-valid, or appropriately refused. This paper introduces CiteGuard-RAG, a validation-centered AI system for evidence-grounded question answering. The system integrates hybrid semantic-lexical retrieval, citation-constrained generation, sentence-level grounding validation, and single-pass regeneration. Validation is used at runtime to determine whether a candidate answer should be accepted, refused, or regenerated before final delivery. CiteGuard-RAG is evaluated on 400 questions across a controlled housing-law dataset, PrivacyQA, and CUAD. In the controlled evaluation, it achieves 99.1% retrieval accuracy, 98.3% grounded-answer accuracy, and 98.3% citation validity, with no validation-detected hallucinations. Ablation results show that grounded-answer accuracy drops sharply when validation is removed, even when retrieval accuracy remains unchanged. External evaluation shows that while citation validity remains strong, evidence utilization, span alignment, and refusal calibration become harder under domain shift. These findings indicate that trustworthy RAG systems require explicit validation between retrieval and final answer delivery. CiteGuard-RAG provides a practical architecture for linking retrieval, generation, citation checking, abstention, and regeneration in high-stakes information access.