Organizations: State Key Laboratory of Virtual Reality Technology and Systems, Beihang University, Beijing, China · Hangzhou Innovation Institute, Beihang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
Graph-based RAG improves multi-hop question answering by organizing evidence as a knowledge graph. However, most existing RAG systems process each query in isolation and discard useful reasoning from the LLM's response after inference. As a result, later related queries need to retrieve evidence and reason from scratch. We propose LivingRAG, a Graph RAG framework with writable and reusable reasoning experience. LivingRAG adds a writable experience store to a graph-based retrieval backbone, enabling verified experiences to be reused during inference in two ways. Stored graph signals help retrieval find entities and passages that were useful in earlier related queries. Stored summaries provide a reference reasoning pattern for answer generation. We analyze online QA streams and find reusable signals from shared entities, graph neighborhoods, and question templates. Experiments on multi-hop QA benchmarks show that LivingRAG improves accuracy over strong RAG baselines and reduces completion-token use when relevant prior experience is reused.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Entity reuse
Graph-neigh. reuse
Template reuse
2Wiki
4.30
99.70
96.30
HotpotQA
26.53
99.10
21.82
MuSiQue
40.34
95.60
39.14
MuSiQue-full
54.10
96.32
54.30
WixQA
76.69
80.45
16.04
Table 1: Reuse signals in online QA streams. Only earlier queries are used as reuse sources. All values are percentages.
Figure 1: Overview of LivingRAG. The framework first constructs a static retrieval graph offline. It then performs experience-augmented retrieval, scaffolded generation, and write-back through quality gates.
Method
2Wiki
HotpotQA
MuSiQue
MuSiQue-full
WixQA
Cont.-Acc.
LLM-Acc.
Cont.-Acc.
LLM-Acc.
Cont.-Acc.
LLM-Acc.
Cont.-Acc.
LLM-Acc.
LLM-Acc.
Vanilla RAG (Top-5) ( Karpukhin et al., 2020 )
58.80
59.40
65.20
77.10
34.00
43.70
27.35
41.33
–
LightRAG ( Guo et al., 2024 )
60.60
48.20
62.20
71.70
39.20
49.10
29.83
44.89
–
GFM-RAG ( Luo et al., 2026b )
75.50
77.80
72.50
86.10
42.70
52.50
37.28
47.75
–
HippoRAG2 ( Gutiérrez et al., 2025 )
76.50
68.00
71.20
84.60
45.40
52.90
40.92
44.06
–
LinearRAG ( Zhuang et al., 2025 )
79.60
84.40
72.90
86.80
48.50
60.70
41.00
52.71
66.00
Table 2: Overall accuracy (%) on QA benchmarks. Cont.-Acc. denotes Contain-Match Accuracy. WixQA is reported only for LinearRAG and LivingRAG; unavailable entries are marked with –. The best result is marked in bold , and the second-best result is underlined.
Dataset
# Queries
Prompt tokens
Completion tokens
Run cost (USD)
Linear
Living
Rel. Δ
Linear
Living
Rel. Δ
Linear
Living
Rel. Δ
2WikiMultiHopQA
1,000
6,038.2
6,241.6
+3.4%
1,067.6
906.4
-15.1%
$6.22
$5.84
-6.1%
HotpotQA
1,000
5,779.8
5,985.8
+3.6%
941.9
767.0
-18.6%
$5.72
$5.29
-7.4%
MuSiQue
1,000
5,888.4
6,092.4
+3.5%
2,098.8
1,641.7
-21.8%
$9.24
$7.97
-13.7%
MuSiQue-full
2,417
8,639.3
8,861.0
+2.6%
2,223.8
1,643.7
-26.1%
$26.57
$22.63
-14.8%
WixQA
400
6,633.0
7,412.8
+11.8%
1,653.8
1,378.1
-16.7%
$3.31
$3.14
-5.3%
Table 3: Token consumption and cost of LinearRAG and LivingRAG. Prompt and completion tokens are per-query averages. Rel. Δ columns report (LivingRAG−LinearRAG)/LinearRAG . Negative values indicate reductions. Run cost is computed with Qwen3.6 Plus pricing: 0.50permillionprompttokensand3.00 per million completion tokens.
Figure 2: Completion-token trends over online QA streams. Each panel corresponds to one dataset. The blue and orange curves show the average completion tokens of LinearRAG and LivingRAG in each stream segment. Green shading between the two curves marks segments where LivingRAG uses fewer completion tokens, while red shading marks segments where it uses more. The first 10% of each stream is expanded to show the startup stage.
Dataset
Graph signal
Template signal
Graph trans.
Opp.
Reuse
2Wiki
0.00
96.30
84.15
HotpotQA
0.00
21.82
9.04
MuSiQue
91.20
39.14
40.69
MuSiQue-full
82.42
54.30
50.44
WixQA
91.50
16.04
7.03
Table 4: Reuse opportunities and realized reuse in LivingRAG. “Opp.” denotes the template-reuse opportunity from Section 3.1 . “Reuse” denotes realized scaffold reuse during inference. Graph transfer is measured from activation-map fusion. The opportunity and realized values use different measurements, so the table should be read as a trend comparison rather than a direct numerical comparison. All values are percentages.
Variant
2W
MQ-F
Wix
Red.
LivingRAG
87.00
58.42
70.25
23.6%
w/o Act. fusion
86.70
56.32
67.45
15.1%
w/o Scaffold
83.80
56.92
69.55
8.3%
w/o Quality Gate
84.60
55.52
68.25
18.0%
Table 5: Ablation results. 2W, MQ-F, and Wix report LLM accuracy (%) on 2WikiMultiHopQA, MuSiQue-full, and WixQA. Red. is average completion-token reduction against LinearRAG.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Dynamics of the NS and GS gates during online inference. NS pass and experience write-back are computed over each window. GS pass is computed only over candidates that reach the GS check. The black curve shows the cumulative number of stored experiences. The first 10% of each stream is expanded to show the startup stage.
Dataset
Questions
NS pass (%)
GS checked
GS pass (%)
GS reject
Stored experiences
2Wiki
1000
13.80
138
72.46
38
100
HotpotQA
1000
63.30
633
86.73
84
549
MuSiQue
1000
36.30
363
86.23
50
313
MuSiQue-full
2417
21.31
515
91.84
42
473
WixQA
400
39.25
157
100.00
0
157
All
5817
31.05
1806
88.15
214
1592
Appendix
Table 6: Effect of the NS and GS gates on experience write-back. All runs use τnovel=0.7 and τgs=0.6 . NS pass is measured over all questions. GS pass is measured only on candidates that reached the GS check. GS reject counts the checked candidates that failed the grounding gate.
Case
Dataset
Idx.
Query
Answer
NS
GS
Decision
Interpretation
Stored multi-hop candidate
HotpotQA
33
What subsidiary of the largest airline of the Republic of China (Taiwan) has a main hub at Taichung Airport?
Mandarin Airlines
0.793
1.000
Stored
Both gates pass. The retrieved airline passage directly supports the answer, so the candidate becomes a verified experience.
Direct WixQA grounding
WixQA
57
I would like to know how many sites I can have.
There is no limit to the number of sites you can create under a single Wix account; you can have as many as you want.
0.829
1.000
Stored
The answer contains directly supported procedural information from the retrieved help articles. This illustrates why WixQA GS scores are often high under the permissive grounding threshold.
Novelty rejection
WixQA
391
can I get a refund on the domain
No. Wix domain purchases are non-refundable and do not include a 14-day money-back guarantee or trial period. If you no longer…
0.213
–
Rejected by NS
The query repeats a stored domain-refund experience. NS assigns a low score, skips GS, and avoids storing another copy of the same support pattern.
Grounding rejection
HotpotQA
858
Spawn, a fictional character who Mustafa Shakir has expressed interest in playing, was created by?
Todd McFarlane
0.701
0.368
Rejected by GS
NS passes, but the retrieved passages do not mention the key entities. The answer matches the gold label, yet GS blocks write-back because the candidate is not grounded in retrieved evidence.
Appendix
Table 7: Representative NS and GS case studies. The cases are selected from the final LivingRAG runs without re-running retrieval or validation.
Dataset
#Q
#Chunks
#Clusters
Coverage
Avg. Size
Max Size
MuSiQue
1,000
1,354
178
79.2
4.4
21
MuSiQue-full
2,417
2,379
300
89.9
7.2
58
Appendix
Table 8: Reuse structure in the MuSiQue streams. Experience clusters are connected components of questions that share at least one decomposed single-hop question.
Dataset
Question
spaCy NER
LLM NER or useful seeds
2Wiki
When did Lothair II’s mother die?
Lothair II
Not needed
2Wiki
Which film was released first, Aas Ka Panchhi or Phoolwari?
Aas Ka Panchhi ; Phoolwari
Not needed
HotpotQA
In which county is the town in which Raymond Robertsen was born?
Raymond Robertsen
Not needed
MuSiQue
When was the person who Messi’s goals in Copa del Rey compared to get signed by Barcelona?
Messi ; Copa del Rey ; Barcelona
Not needed
WixQA
I’m want to know how much it would cost to upgrade my email plan.
[]
Email Marketing Plan ; upgrade Email Marketing Plan ; Email Marketing Plan pricing
WixQA
How do I sync the hotel app with my calendars ical link to allow visitors to book available dates on my site?
Table 9: Examples of query-side entity extraction. spaCy works well for standard multi-hop QA because the key retrieval cues are ordinary named entities. On WixQA, the key cues are product-domain terms, so spaCy often fails or extracts only broad entities.
Method
Query Set
0 Ent.
Avg.
Med.
Range
spaCy NER
2Wiki, first 400
1.2
1.68
2
0–4
spaCy NER
WixQA, all 400
52.5
0.61
0
0–4
LLM NER + mapping
WixQA, all 400
0.0
3.77
4
1–5
Appendix
Table 10: Query-side entity extraction statistics. LLM NER addresses the low-recall problem of standard NER on WixQA while keeping the number of query seeds small.
Statistic
Value
Chunks
7,132
Chunks with no entity
1
Avg. entities per chunk
11.23
Median entities per chunk
10
Sentences with entities
68,798
Avg. entities per entity-bearing sentence
1.79
Appendix
Table 11: Index-side entity extraction statistics for WixQA with LLM NER.
Dataset
#Chk.
Median
<1000
<2000
WixQA
7,132
1,321
44.4
59.6
2Wiki
658
4,449
0.0
0.0
HotpotQA
1,311
4,651
0.0
0.0
MuSiQue
1,354
4,701
0.0
0.0
Appendix
Table 12: Passage length distribution by character count. WixQA contains many short chunks, while the Wikipedia-style datasets are close to fixed-length chunks.
Dataset
Question
Gold answer
Words
2Wiki
When did Lothair II’s mother die?
20 March 851
3
2Wiki
Which film was released first, Aas Ka Panchhi or Phoolwari?
Phoolwari
1
HotpotQA
In which county is the town in which Raymond Robertsen was born?
Finnmark county
2
MuSiQue
When was the person who Messi’s goals in Copa del Rey compared to get signed by Barcelona?
June 1982
2
WixQA
Can I start accepting payments on my site while my Wix Payments account is still under verification?
You can start accepting payments almost immediately, but Wix must verify your identity before the account is fully activated.
27
WixQA
I want to know if the Wix store function work for selling services instead of just physical goods.
The answer distinguishes Wix Stores from Wix Bookings . For selling services, it recommends Wix Bookings because it supports service booking and online payment.
66
Appendix
Table 13: Gold answer format differs sharply between standard multi-hop QA and WixQA. Standard QA usually expects a short span. WixQA expects a support solution.
Dataset
Median words
≤ 5 words
> 30 words
2WikiMultiHopQA
2
95.5
0.0
HotpotQA
2
96.1
0.0
MuSiQue
2
91.2
0.0
WixQA
59
0.2
85.0
Appendix
Table 14: Answer length statistics. WixQA answers are long support solutions rather than short answer spans.
Dataset
Method
LLM s/q
Retrieval s/q
Retrieval / LLM
Validation s/q
2Wiki
LinearRAG
30.07
0.50
1.7%
N/A
2Wiki
LivingRAG
24.04
0.54
2.2%
2.13
HotpotQA
LinearRAG
15.42
0.72
4.7%
N/A
HotpotQA
LivingRAG
14.45
0.74
5.1%
2.35
MuSiQue
LinearRAG
37.23
1.49
4.0%
N/A
MuSiQue
LivingRAG
33.88
1.50
4.4%
6.64
Appendix
Table 15: LLM, retrieval, and validation times are module-level averages. Indexing, model loading, and evaluation-only LLM calls are excluded. The Retrieval / LLM column reports the ratio between retrieval time and LLM time. Validation refers to the post-answer novelty and grounding checks used for experience write-back.
Figure 8: Prompt token trends over online QA streams. Each panel corresponds to one dataset. The blue curve shows LinearRAG and the orange curve shows LivingRAG. The first 10% of each stream is expanded to show the startup stage.
Figure 9: Online use of stored experiences in LivingRAG. The curves show activation-map retrieval, reasoning scaffold use, experience write-back, and the cumulative number of stored experiences. The first 10% of each stream is expanded to show the startup stage.
Dataset
Stored experiences
Activation-map retrieval
Reasoning scaffold reuse
Top- K selections
Coverage (%)
Uses
Coverage (%)
Max uses
2Wiki
100
4820
97.00
984
85.00
103
HotpotQA
549
2814
79.60
984
58.11
20
MuSiQue
313
2799
86.90
983
70.29
30
MuSiQue-full
473
6828
93.02
2401
81.61
68
WixQA
157
1910
88.54
384
67.52
20
Appendix
Table 16: Coverage of stored experiences during LivingRAG inference. Activation-map retrieval counts how often stored experiences are selected in the top- K experience match set used for retrieval guidance. Reasoning scaffold reuse counts how often stored experiences are selected as generation scaffolds. Coverage is the percentage of stored experiences selected at least once.
Dataset
Graph
Template
Δ LLM- Acc.
Δ Completion tokens
2Wiki
–
–
+0.59
-12.8
–
✓
+2.97
-189.1
MuSiQue-full
–
–
+0.56
+23.6
✓
–
+2.12
-297.2
–
✓
+4.73
-1352.9
✓
✓
+9.81
-964.7
Appendix
Table 17: Performance changes conditioned on realized graph and template reuse.
Dataset
Setting
Cont.-Acc.
LLM-Acc.
Completion tokens
Graph trans.
Template reuse
2Wiki
Paper
79.60 / 82.70
84.40 / 87.00
1067.6 / 906.4
0.00
84.15
3 orders
79.13 ± 0.42 / 83.33 ± 2.03
83.80 ± 1.22 / 89.40 ± 5.14
1038.7 ± 25.4 / 806.4 ± 92.7
0.00 ± 0.00
81.54 ± 2.69
MuSiQue-full
Paper
41.00 / 44.39
52.71 / 58.42
2223.8 / 1643.7
82.42
50.44
3 orders
41.36 ± 1.12 / 44.21 ± 0.90
53.10 ± 0.44 / 58.09 ± 0.88
2231.8 ± 26.5 / 1744.8 ± 94.4
81.84 ± 0.55
50.15 ± 0.64
WixQA
Paper
–
66.00 / 70.25
1653.8 / 1378.1
91.50
7.03
3 orders
–
66.25 ± 1.39 / 70.25 ± 1.00
1689.4 ± 38.6 / 1403.6 ± 22.2
91.92 ± 0.38
7.29 ± 0.30
Appendix
Table 18: Robustness across different online query orders.
Graph retrieval-augmented generation (GraphRAG) enhances large language models with structured knowledge, yet existing systems construct knowledge graphs in a single extraction pass, producing noisy entities and brittle retrieval. RAGU, an open-source modular GraphRAG engine, addresses this by separating extraction from consolidation: entities and relations pass through two-stage typed extraction, DBSCAN-backed deduplication, LLM summarization, and Leiden community detection. A key insight motivates a compact extractor: the skills an in-pipeline LLM needs - comprehension, extraction, reasoning over context - are language skills that grow only weakly with model size, unlike factual world knowledge. Accordingly, we train Meno-Lite-0.1, a 7B model optimized for language skills, which outperforms Qwen2.5-32B on knowledge-graph construction (+12.5% relative harmonic mean) and matches it on English GraphRAG tasks. On GraphRAG-Bench (Medical), RAGU retrieves the most complete context at every factoid level (evidence recall up to 0.84 vs. ≤0.76) and overtakes HippoRAG2 on synthesis tasks; on multi-hop factoid QA, the apparent HippoRAG2 advantage is shown to be largely an answer-format artifact. RAGU is installable via \texttt{pip install graph_ragu}, runs on a single GPU, and is released under MIT. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/RaguTeam/RAGU, and the Meno-Lite-0.1 model can be obtained from https://huggingface.co/bond005/meno-lite-0.1.
Mikhail Komarov, Ivan Bondarenko, Stanislav Shtuka +5
1ITMO University · 2Novosibirsk State University · 3Far Eastern Federal University +1
Graph-RAG systems achieve strong multi-hop question answering by indexing documents into knowledge graphs, but strong retrieval does not guarantee strong answers. Evaluating KET-RAG, a leading Graph-RAG system, on three multi-hop QA benchmarks (HotpotQA, MuSiQue, 2WikiMultiHopQA), we find that 77% to 91% of questions have the gold answer in the retrieved context, yet accuracy is only 35% to 78%, and 73% to 84% of errors are reasoning failures. We propose two augmentations: (i) SPARQL chain-of-thought prompting, which decomposes questions into triple-pattern queries aligned with the entity-relationship context, and (ii) graph-walk compression, which compresses the context by ~60% via knowledge-graph traversal with no LLM calls. SPARQL CoT improves accuracy by +2 to +14 pp; graph-walk compression adds +6 pp on average when paired with structured prompting on smaller models. Surprisingly, we show that, with question-type routing, a fully augmented budget open-weight Llama-8B model matches or exceeds the unaugmented Llama-70B baseline on all three benchmarks at ~12x lower cost. A replication on LightRAG confirms that our augmentations transfer across Graph-RAG systems.
Yasaman Zarrinkia, Venkatesh Srinivasan, Alex Thomo
Language model agents reason from scratch on every query, discarding their chain of thought after each run. The result is lower accuracy and high run-to-run variance. We introduce reasoning graphs, which persist the per-evidence chain of thought as structured edges. Unlike prior memory that retrieves distilled strategies by query similarity, reasoning graphs enable evidence-centric feedback: for every candidate item, the system traverses all incoming evaluation edges across prior runs to surface how that specific item has been judged before. We further introduce retrieval graphs, which feed a planner that prunes consistently-rejected candidates over successive runs. Together they form a ROZA graph: a self-improving feedback loop in which accuracy gains scale with gold-passage reuse (reasoning graph) and efficiency gains scale with candidate-pool overlap (retrieval graph). The base model remains frozen; all gains come from context engineering via graph traversal. We evaluate on MuSiQue and HotpotQA, plus a high-reuse deployment subset. Four findings stand out. (1) Dose-response: accuracy improves monotonically with evidence-profile coverage, reaching +10.6pp over Vanilla RAG at 50%+ coverage on the same questions (47% error reduction, p<0.0001; per-question Spearman ρ=+0.144, p<10−6, n=1,100). (2) Multi-hop scaling: 4-hop accuracy improves by +11.0pp (p=0.0001). (3) Cross-cluster prediction: the cluster-level gain is predicted by gold-passage reuse density (r=0.604, p=0.001, n=26 clusters). (4) High-reuse Pareto dominance: highest or tied-for-highest accuracy alongside 46% lower cost and 46% lower latency. Per-passage decision consistency across repeated runs (N=73 paired probes, K=10 runs each, two model families, three temperatures) rises by +8 to +13pp on a fixed 20-passage context and by +12 to +21pp when the retrieval graph also prunes (all p<0.005).